IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 20th day of October, 2020
Filed on 17. 07. 2017
Present
1. Sri. Santhoshkumar Bsc. LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.BA. LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.199/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Rajesh Kurup 1. The General Manager.
S/o M.R.G.Kurup BSNL, Alappuzha
Surabhi
Sanathanapuram.P.O 2. Accounts Officer(TR)
Kalarcode, Alappuzha (Mobile &WIMAX Billing)
(Adv.Sulficker) Alappuzha.
(Adv. Cherian Kuruvila)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
Brief facts of complaint are as follows:-
Complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.The 1st opposite party is the General Manager of BSNL and 2nd opposite party is the account officer of BSNL.The complainant along with his family left India for a European trip on 26/4/2017 and came back on 2/5/2017.During these days in order to keep in touch with his age old parents, he availed an international facility to his existing
mobile phone connection No.9446029984.He deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- for the above facility and he was informed that the usage charge will be accounted later and no other instructions or warring regarding the usage.
According to the complainant, during abroad, he made only 4 to 5 outgoing calls and received 2 to 3 incoming calls for a shorter duration of 2 to 4 minutes,since he had high speed WI-FI at all stations including hotels and buses in which he travelled, he made calls via Whatsapp only.On 2nd May 2017, when he reached India, his connection to the said mobile found disconnected and received a mobile bill for Rs.28,817/- at his home.Thereafter on 8th May 2017, he received another bill amounting to Rs.46,437/-.
Complainant enquired about the bills to the opposite parties and they informed that the reason can be explained only after getting a detailed bill, for which he made a written request with his ID proof.Since he did not get a detailed bill for the next four days and no response was shown, he managed to get it the through his personal contacts.After getting an incomplete detailed Bill he approaches the authority.He was informed to pay an amount of Rs.18,800/- only after making an installment.After ten days his connection was activated.Again on 12/6/2017 he received another
bill of Rs. 65,071/-. This complainant was again shocked.When he rushed to the authority he was directed to pay the entire bills.Though he tried to get the detailed bill, he was not given.
According to the complainant he is not at all liable to pay the authorized illegal bills issued by the opposite parties, hence it is liable to be set aside.Due to the acts of the opposite parties, this petition had sustained mental pain financial loss and strain.He is also entitled to get back the amount of Rs.18,800/- along with its interest.Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite parties are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable since dispute is pertaining to the telephone bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant.As per Sec.7B of the Indian Telegraph Rules provided special remedy.Therefore this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.The cell phone connection vide phone number 9446029984 was provided to the complainant on 6/11/2005.At the request of the complainant, international roaming facility was activated to the said number after accepting an amount of Rs.5,000/- as deposit.
The averment in the complaint that while he was abroad, he made only 4 to 5 calls for a shorter duration and received 2 to 3 incoming calls is not true.The call details recorded by the computer system reveals that large numbers of phone calls of long durations were made from his number during that period.Apart from phone calls, internet facility also was utilized and on account of the phone calls and usage of internet while in a foreign country, phone call charges mounted to an unusually higher level than the charges for usage while in the home country.After activating the international roaming, it was noticed that the usage of the phone is excessive and hence a pro forma invoice was issued to the complainant on 03.05.2017 by BSNL to alert the complainant of the excessive usage and also demanding payment of Rs.28,817/-.The allegation that his connection was seen disconnected on 3/5/2017 on his return home is not true.Phone connections are usually disconnected for nonpayment of the bill amount within the period stipulated for payment.Pro forma bill was issued to the complainant on 3/5/2017.There is no possibility of disconnecting the phone prior to that date and within the period stipulated for payment.The bills were issued by opposite parties demanding payment of call charges for the actual usage and are genuine bills based on computer generated data.There is no possibility of false reading or recording, leading to excessive billing.The charges are not confined to phone calls but also for internet usage and international calls. The tariff of international calls from BSNL mobile numbers are published in the website of BSNL and the complainant ought to have referred the same before filing the complaint alleging excessive billing.
The total amount payable by the complainant for the period from 1/4/2017to 31/7/2017 is Rs.85,443/- out of which he has paid Rs.20,800/- and an amount of Rs.65,063/- is now outstanding in his account and he is liable to pay the same with fine amount for delayed payment.The complainant had preferred a complaint to BSNL alleging excessive billing.He was enlightened of the facts and figures and a detailed bill was served on him on 15/7/2017. His version that detailed bill was not served on him considering his request is not true.He was then convinced of the genuineness of the bill and the bill amount.Then the complainant expressed his willingness to pay the bill amount in instalments.Thereafter he has preferred the above complaint as an attempt to evade payment of the bill amount.There are no grounds and reasons to get the bills issued cancelled. When international roaming is activated, there is an international agency which route the calls originated from BSNL number in India and that agency charge BSNL for the calls originated from BSNL number.The levy almost 10 times higher amount than the call charges of BSNL.In fact BSNL used to pay the amount to the international agency prior to the issuance of the bill to the concerned customer.Since the international roaming charges of the calls made by the complainant have been remitted by BSNL, the complainant cannot be permitted to evade payment or delay the payment or rather reimbursement of the remittance made by BSNL.The complainant has no genuine cause action to institute a complaint of this nature before this commission against BSNL.Complainant is not entitled to get the reliefs that are prayed for in the complaint.
3. The complainant and opposite parties were appeared through counsel.The complainant was examined as PW1, Exts. A1 to A4 were marked.From the side of opposite parties, RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ext.B1 to B5 were marked.Thereafter, we have heard the respective counsel.
-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order to cancel the bills issued bythe opposite parties to the complainant?
2. Compensation and costs if any?
5. Points No.1 and 2:-
For avoiding repetition both points are considered together.The case of PW1 the complainant is that he availed an international roaming facility to his existing mobile phone connection number 9446029984 for that he deposited an amount of Rs.5000/-(Five thousand only).The complainant went abroad on 24/2/2017 and came back on 2/5/2017.
When he was abroad, he made only 4 to 5 outgoing calls and received 2 to 3 incoming calls for a shorter duration of 2 to 4 minutes.When he reached India on 2nd May 2017, his mobile phone is disconnected and received Ext.A1 bill dtd. 3/5/2017 for Rs.28,817/-. Again on 3/5/2016 another bill issued Ext.A2 to Rs. 46,637/- then on 3/6/2017 received Ext.A3 bill for Rs. 65,071/- and Ext.A4 bill dtd. 28/6/2017 for Rs.66,213/-.According to the complainant he is not liable to pay the above said exorbitant bills.Since he had used high speed Wi-Fi at all the stations during his journey, he made calls via whatsapp only.
Opposite parties contenting that they are not pressing contention with regard to maintainability of the complainant.According to them after activating roaming facility, the usage of the phone calls and internet facility are excessive hence Ext.B1(A1) a proforma invoicewas issued to the complainant to alert him of excessive usage and bills issued to the complainant are marked as Exts. B1 to B3 i.e Ext.A1 to A3, Ext.B4 is the detailed bill of invoice from 1/4/2017 and Ext.B5 is also a bill dtd. 3/8/2017.Apart from the phone calls, internet facility also was utilized and all call details recorded by the computer system.Further that an international agency is route the calls and they levy almost 10 times higher amount than the call charges of BSNL.The BSNL used to pay the amount of said agency prior to the issuance of the bill to concerned customer. Therefore the complainant is legally bound to pay the entire bill amount claimed by the opposite parties otherwise that would result huge financial loss to the BSNL.
The fact that complainant availed internet roaming facility from opposite parties is not in dispute.The dispute is that the opposite parties issued huge bill than the usage of said facility. Ext.A1 to A4 are the disputed bills issued to the complainant by opposite parties.According to the opposite parties they did not disconnect the connection on 3/5/2017 as stated by the complainant.But when they noticed the excessive usage of the roaming facility issued Ext.A1(B1) proforma invoice dtd.3/5/2017 and for the period from 1/4/2017 to 30/4/2017.On the same day itself issued Ext.A2(B2) for the period from 1/5/2017 to 31/5/2017.Thereafter Ext.A4 issued on 28/6/2017 for the period of 1/6/2017 to 30/6/2017.
The complainant stated that his connection was seen disconnected on 3/5/2017.He further contented that he came back from abroad on 1/5/2017 at late night.But the opposite parties refuted such statement.During cross examination of PW1, he agreed he will produce his passport for proving about when he returned from abroad to India.But did not produce the same.It seems that no evidence before us that when he reached from abroad.
On a perusal of Ext.A1(B1) the bill dtd. 3/5/2017 in which specifically shown ‘Duration (Sec)/ No’ of incoming and outgoing calls.But during the cross examination of PW1, who is a bank manager by profession, deposed that he was taken the detailed bill but there is no clarity with regard to incoming and outgoing call numbers and he agreed to produce the same before commission.But he did not produce said bill.The detailed bill produced by the opposite parties is marked as Ext.B4, it is for the period from 1/4/2017 to 27/4/2017.In which mentioned the jurisdiction, origin, target, trans date primary units and amounts of usages.From which we found that complainant used internet, made number of outgoing calls and also received incoming calls.It seems that the contention of the complainant is not correct with regard to the usage of roaming facility and internet.Moreover RW1 deposed that they sent automatic message as well as issued Ext.A1 proforma invoice with regard to excessive usage.
According to the opposite parties after availing roaming facility, issue international SIM card, it will be connected with the service provider of the foreign country and network of that country having roaming agreement with BSNL.The rate of the calls and other activities will be charged by the service provider at the prevailing in that country.RW2 stated during cross examination that the tariffs of international calls from BSNL numbers are published in the website of BSNL.Moreover complainant should be made written request.Admittedly, the complainant is not a layman therefore it is no doubt that he is aware of the tariff of international calls published in the BSNL website and usage of the roaming facilities.It is unbelievable that the statement with regard to the detailed bill by PW1.Ext.B4 detailed bill proves that complainant used internet facility as well as made roaming calls than his contention.Therefore, there is no irregularity found in Ext.A1 to A4 bills issued by the opposite parties and there is no deficiency of service found as against the opposite parties.It appears that BSNL already paid complainant’s bill amount to the service provider in the foreign country.
In view of the aforementioned discussions we have no hesitation to hold that there is no merit and bonafides in the complaint.Hence in the result the complaint is only to be dismissed without any cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 20th day of October , 2020.
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Sd/-Sri. S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Rajesh Kurup(complaiannt)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/5/2017
Ext.A2 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/5/2017
Ext.A3 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/6/2017
Ext.A4 - Copy of Bill dtd.28/6/2017
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vanajam(Witness)
RW2 - Sunilkumar.S(Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/5/2017
Ext.B2 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/5/2017.
Ext.B3 - Copy of Bill dtd.3/6/2017
Ext.B4 - Detailed bills of Invoice.921088094
Ext.B5 - Current Invoice details dtd.3/8/2017
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
