Punjab

Patiala

CC/14/277

Dr. Charanjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Idea Cellular - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Puneet Jain

26 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

 

                                      Complaint No.CC/277/14 of 1.10.2014

                                      Decided on:                  26.05.2015

 

 

Dr.Charanjit Sinh son of Sh.Joginder Singh resident of #85,Bharat Nagar, Nabha Road, Patiala.

 

                                                                   ….........Complainant

                                      Versus

 

1. IDEA Cellular Ltd., through its Director/Authorized Person,C-105,Phase-VIII, Industrial Area, Mohali.
2. Gogia Communications, 5-A, Aman Nagar, Ghuman Road, Near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala.

 

                                                                   ….........Ops

 

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

 

                                      QUORUM

 

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member           

                            

Present:

For the complainant:   Gurpreetinder Singh, Advocate

For Op no.1                  Sh.Amandeep Singh Saran,Advocate

For Op no.2                  Ex-parte

                                     

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he is a subscriber of the mobile phone No.98146-42026 of the Idea Cellular Limited i.e. Op no.1. He has got two more Add-on numbers i.e. 98554-42026 and 98556-42026 of the said Idea Cellular Limited.The complainant being a Class-I officer of a Nodal agency , he has to attend various meetings and international conferences held in different countries and therefore, he was using ISD facility as also the roaming facility on his mobile phone No. 98146-42026 and has been paying the bills regularly, his billing cycle being 23^rd June to 27^th July.
2. In the month of June,2014, the complainant had planned to visit Dubai . Before leaving India, the complainant contacted Gogiya Communication i.e. Op no.2 an Idea Dealership for international roaming at reasonable rates and he was asked by Op no.2 to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as security for ISD and roaming facility. The complainant paid Rs.2500/- as security against receipt No.11008 dated 2.6.2014 and he was also told by the owner of Op no.2 that the complainant could make a use of the double the amount for international roaming/calling/dialing and ISD facilities.
3. It is further averred that during the stay of the complainant at Dubai, his mobile phone No. 98146-42026 had stopped working as the calling was barred by Idea Cellular Limited on 12.6.2014 without prior intimation/notice. Consequently, the complainant was left in the lurch. His mobile phone No. 98146-42026 is most circulated among his officials and in the social net work. Due to the barring of incoming and outgoing calls, the complainant had to miss many important meetings at Dubai and he had also to postpone  his meetings to some other trips as his schedule was very tight  and he had to join his duty at Patiala.
4. After coming back to India, the complainant contacted Op no.2 and enquired about the deficient services i.e. barring of the calling facility of mobile phone No. 98146-42026.On this, Op no.2 issued a fresh sim card with the same number but the same failed to work at all. The complainant again contacted Op no.2 but he was told to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the bill. At this the complainant sought the detail of the bill from Op no.2 regarding the usage but Op no.2 refused to provide the same. When the complainant received the bill, the same did not show any usage.
5. It is further averred by the complainant that he approached the higher officials of Idea Cellular Limited and he was given the details of the usages un- officially with a condition not to disclose the name of the official having provided the information. From the said detail of the usage, it came to light that the bill pertained to GPRS services, which were neither  opted nor used by the complainant as would appear from the security receipt. The bill was on the higher side without any usage of the facility. The complainant was sent the bill for Rs.44,674.90.
6. It is further averred that on account of the facility on his mobile phone no. 98146-42026 having been stopped during his stay at Dubai, he had to suffer harassment, mental agony as also the monetary loss on account of deficiency of service on the part of Op no1.The complainant got the Ops served with a legal notice on 9.9.2014 through his counsel calling upon them to restore the services of mobile phone No. 98146-42026 within 15 days and to pay him Rs.five lac by way of compensation on account of the harassment, mental agony and monetary loss suffered by him due to the deficiency of service but the Ops failed to reply the same.Accordingly the complainant has  approached this Forum through the present complaint brought under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.5lac by way of compensation and to restore the services on his mobile phone No. 98146-42026 and on aforesaid two Add-on numbers and to send the bill of the actual amount with regard to the calls only made by the complainant during his visit to Dubai after deducting the GPRS usage during the said visit.
7. The cognizance of the complaint was taken against the Ops. Only Op no.1 appeared to contest the claim of the complainant whereas Op no.2 despite service failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
8. In the written version filed by Op no.1, it has raised certain preliminary objections, interalia  , that the complaint does not disclose any cause of action qua any deficiency of service; that the remedy of the complainant is barred under Section 7(B) of the India Telegraph Act; that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties in as much as the complainant has not joined the international operator, whose telecom services were availed of by the complainant during his visit to foreign country and that the complainant has concealed the material fact regarding the usage of GPRS services during his foreign visit and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As regards the facts of the complaint, the Op has not denied the complainant being the subscriber of the services of the Op. He may be obliged to prove the usage of the ISD facility as also roaming facility on his mobile Phone No. 98146-42026.The Op had never provided any scheme with regard to the providing of the services regarding the double the amount deposited by the complainant.
9. It is the plea taken up by the Op that the mobile services of the complainant were barred by the Op when the bill of the complainant was found to be exorbitantly high because of the heavy usage. Moreover, in United Arab Emirates UAE/Dubai, the complainant had availed the mobile services of the international operator. He was using the GPRS/Internet services. The Op had barred the mobile connection of the complainant only when intimated by the international operator about the usage of the number of the complainant, as was depicted from the heavy usage of services availed of by the complainant during the said period. It is further stated that in the case of international roaming, if the customer does not avail services on the net work of Idea in U.A.E., the bill is generated purely on the basis of usage of customer as latched on foreign/international telecom services provider with roaming tie-ups across anywhere in the world, on the basis of  international  roaming rates as are applicable in the country where the customer is roaming. It is the complainant who is responsible for the barring of the services as the usage was exorbitant  on his number. It is denied that the Op had provided deficient services to the complainant. The Op raised the bill for the period 23.5.2014 to 22.6.2014 for Rs.44674.90 in accordance with the usage of the services availed of by the complainant. It is denied that the complainant had never opted for the services availed of by him and rather it is only due to the roaming and internet services provided to the complainant  that the complainant had been able to avail the services, in respect of which the bills were generated by the Op. The Op was intimated about the usage of the services by the international operator. The Op has also raised the objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint. Ultimately, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
10. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C14 and his counsel closed his evidence.
11. On the  other hand, on behalf of the Op it’s counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Manoj Madaan, authorized signatory of the Op alongwith documents Exs.OP1 to Op2 and closed its evidence.
12. The  complainant filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
13. It is the case of the complainant that he has been making a use of the ISD facility as also the roaming facility on his mobile phone No.98146-42026.During his visit to Finland and other countries he made a use of the internet roaming facility and ISD facility. In the month of June,2014, he had planned to visit Dubai.Before leaving  for the said country, he had contacted Op no.2, an Idea Dealership in connection with international roaming and who told him that in case he paid Rs.2500/- as security for ISD and roaming facility, he could make a use of the same for the double the amount i.e. Rs.2500/- and accordingly he deposited Rs.2500/- as security with Op no.2 vide receipt No.11008 dated 2.6.2014,Ex.C1.
14. During his stay at Dubai, his mobile Phone No.98146-42026 stopped working as the calling was barred by Op no.1 on 12.6.2014 without any prior intimation and therefore, he had to postpone some official meetings for some other trips. When he returned India, he contacted Op no.2 and enquired about he deficiency in service. At this Op no.2 issued him a fresh sim card with the same number but the same failed to work.The complainant again contacted Op no.2 when he was told to payRs.40,000/-, the amount of the bill. When he complainant asked for the detail of the bill to show the usage, Op no.2 made a refusal. The complainant then arranged the detail of the bill un officially and he came to know that the higher amount of the bill was due to the excessive GPRS services, which were neither opted nor used by the complainant as would appear from the security receipt Ex.C1 dated 2.6.2014.
15. The only point  to be seen is as to whether the complainant had made a use of GPRS during his stay at Dubai.
16. Ex.Op1 is the bill dated 23.6.2014 issued by Op no.1 in the name of the complainant for the period 23.5.2014 to 22.6.2014 showing an arrear of Rs.3072.60 of the previous months , the payment of Rs.610/- and the adjustment of Rs.2463.83. The amount of the current charges have been shown at Rs.44676.11.The total bill was issued for Rs.44676.90. In the summary of the charges the detail of the roaming charges has been given as Rs.39300.26. The bill is attached with the statement of account showing the amount of the previous bil as Rs.3072.62, the payment received as Rs.610/- and the adjustments of Rs.2463.83. The bill is further attached with the detail showing the monthly charges, features charges, usage and VAS charges as also the roaming charges. The bill is further attached with the itemized details in connection with Cellular No.98146-42026 with reference to outgoing calls detail, SMS, GPRS usage for the period 22.5.2014 to 4.6.2014, roaming calls detail at Delhi circle for the period 10.6.2014,UAE country usage calls made through the net work of ETISALT,UA for the period 10.6.2014 , U.A.E. country usage, GPRS usage availed through Etisalt UA for the period10.6.2014 to 13.6.2014,Dubai country usage calls availed through the service provider namely Dubai DU for the period 10.6.2014 to 12.6.2014 and Dubai country usage GPRS usage for the period 10.6.2014 to 12.6.2014.
17. It is not the case of the complainant that he had not made a use of the UAE country calls through the service provider namely Etisalt,UA or the services of the service provider namely Dubai,DU in the Dubai for the period aforesaid. The complainant made a use of the  services of the two companies namely Etisalt UA in UAE and of Dubai DU in Dubai for the internet services and Op no.1 has lavied the charges as applicable in the two counties.
18. The plea taken up by the complainant that he had neither opted nor used the GPRS services is without any basis because the complainant has not been able to contradict the detail regarding the usage of internet services of the two companies namely Etisalt UA in the UAE and of Dubai DU in Dubai as per the detail given in the bill,Ex.OP1. The complainant could very easily contradict the said detail with the help of the data available in his mobile phone but he has not opted to do so.
19. The complainant had admittedly deposited a sum of Rs.2500/- towards the security deposit and as per the detail,Ex.OP1, the credit limit of the complainant was upto Rs.8300/- but the complainant having made a usage of the same, as per the plea taken up by the Op  beyond the said limit, Op no.1 was justified in having barred the calling facility to the mobile phone of the complainant and the said fact can easily be verified from the bill,Ex.OP1 which goes to show that upto 13.6.2014, the complainant had made a total usage for U.A.E. country upto Rs.2770/- while he made a usage of the GPRS in Dubai  from 10.6.2014 to 12.6.2014 upto Rs.25,455/- Consequently , we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of Op no.1 and rather it can safely be said that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the factum that he had made a use of the GPRS in U.A.E. and Dubai pertaining to Etisalt U.A. and Dubai DU in Dubai. Resultantly, the complaint is bound to fail and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated:26.05.2015

 

                   Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta                        D.R.Arora

          Member                        Member                                  President