IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 15th day of September, 2018.
Filed on 18-12-2015
Present
- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2. Smt. Sheela Jacob, B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.370/2015
between
Complainants:- Opposite parties:-
Sri Devaraj 1. The Manager
S/o Sudhakaran, Tata Docomo Franchises
Puthenparambu Iron Bridge Road, M.O. Ward
Kottamkulangara Alappuzha
Alappuzha
2. The General Manager
Circle Office, Tata Teleservice Ltd
St. Plaza, Palarivattom, Cochin-682 025
3. The General Manager
Tata Teleservices Ltd., Jeevan Bharati
Towe-1, 10th Floor, 125 Connaught Circus
New Delhi-110001
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
- The averments in the complaint short are as follows:-
The complainant is a business man by profession. The agent of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant in person and convinced him regarding the valuable services rendered by the opposite parties to the customers. By believing the representation of the 1st opposite party the complainant was constrained to switch over to the mobile service of the opposite parties with the mobile number 09249465043. The complainant has been using the said connection as post paid. In the month of August 2015, the complainant requested the 1st opposite party to arrange international roaming facility. The opposite party offered a very attractive package to the complainant. As per the offer of the opposite parties, Rs. 40.00 per minute is charged for international roaming facilities. On 11.09.2015, the complainant reached the country “Turkey” in connection with his business. He was using his TATA DOCOMO No. 09249465043 on the day and the very next day also.. The incoming calls he attended and the outgoing calls he made together were only 14 and the total duration as per the bill was 1 hour 28 minutes and 7 seconds for both the days together. But quite as a bolt from the blue the opposite parties disconnected the service to the complainant’s mobile phone No. 09249465043 without any prior notice or warning or any lawful excuse. The disconnection of the service to the mobile number of the complainant without prior notice is highly illegal and unwarranted and against all the established legal principles due to which the complainant suffered serious setback in his business for which the opposite parties are solely liable. The complainant being a business man suffered huge loss in his business, since he could not contact his clients and deal in his business. Moreover, the complainant made all the banking transactions including online transaction and payments like taxes, third party bills etc. through the said mobile connection. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 6,800/- to the opposite parties as security. 2. On reaching home on 20/10/2015 the complainant was served with bill No. 1889119131 for Rs. 42,651.56. On perusal of the said bill he came to known that the Opposite parties charged Rs. 34,595/- as against roaming charges during the said period whereas, the total sum of roaming charges comes to only Rs. 3525/-. Hence, it is evident on the face of the record that, the opposite parties charging exorbitant call charges in rampant violation of the norms and rules prescribed by TRAI and thereby the acts of the opposite parties are highly unauthorized and per se illegal amounting to deficiency in service to the complainant.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite parties by the complainant through his counsel on 09-11-2015 demanding payment of compensation. The opposite parties though received the notice, didn’t care to pay compensation as claimed or to send reply in response to the notice. It is also submitted that the illegal acts of the opposite parties caused intolerable mental agony and other hardships to the complainant and though it is not strictly ascertainable in monitory terms for the purpose of this proceedings, the complainant estimates and limits the quantum of compensation at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The complainant cannot redress his grievances without the intervention of this Hon’ble Forum. Hence the complaint.
- The opposite parties resisted the complaint by filing a detailed version raising the following contentions:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.As it is against the provision of the Indian Telegraph Act, However it is admitted that the compliant had been a subscriber of the opposite party under post paid platform. The complainant has availed International Roaming facility (IR) after due verification and convinced of charges and tariff applicable to them.Tariff plans and charges varies from each operator.The complainant availed IR facility as per choice to satisfy his need.Opposite party never offered any special offer to the complainant and statements to the contra are intended only to avoid the payment of bill amount to the opposite parties.Whoare rendering services as per best available rates and the same is being provided the same throughout the nation. The bill dated 27.09.2015 is accurate and fault free and the same has been generated as per the approved and prevailing cheapest tariff plan of the respondent company and the respondent is not bond to comply any prevailing market rates as alleged by the petitioner and no excess or exorbitant amount has been charged to the petitioner and it is normal, reasonable IR plans applied to the petitioner and allegations to the contra are false and hence denied.There are no anomalies or defects in the above invoices/bill and allegations to the contra are false and hence denied.The complainant is bond to make the entire dues with respect to the service availed by them.The complainant approached this Forum to make illegal gains without making the due remittance of charges which they are liable against usage.There is no deficiency of service and admittedly the complainant had been the customer of the respondents for the last several years without any dispute.The respondents are not bound to generate bills according to the whims and fancies of the complainant rather the same is done as per law with all legal compliances as well.
- The opposite party already sends SMS and done tele calling regarding the nonpayment of bill amount several times from 12.09.2015 on wards. There is concealment of material facts by the complainants as the intimation regarding the payment due was already communicated to the complainant. The connection has been disconnected after making deliberate defaults in paying usage charges as per the bill which is at par with the terms of the service and even after making repeated requests the complainant ignored the payment stating lame excuses and it was under such circumstances the respondent constrained to disconnect the service connection after due intimation. The act of the complainant caused huge financial and goodwill loss to the opposite parties and hence reserves every right to recover all the amounts due from the complainant with respect to the connection availed by him as on date through due process of law.
- On 20.10.2015 the complainant was served with bill no. 1889119131 for Rs. 42,651.56/- is correct and the further statements that on perusal by the complainant he came to know that the opposite parties charged Rs. 34,595/- as against roaming charges during the said period whereas, the total sum of roaming charges comes only Rs. 3,525/- is false and hence denied. The roaming charges including international SMS, international incoming and outgoing calls for the above referred bill is Rs. 34,655/- The opposite party does not charged any exorbitant call charges in violation of the norms and rules prescribed by TRAI. The acts of opposite parties are neither unauthorized nor illegal and there is no deficiency of service on the side of the opposite parties. The opposite party received notice from the complainant and also sends reply notice denying the contents in the notice but it was returned to the sender because of defect in address. The petitioners approached this Forum with unclean hands concealing materials facts. There is no illegal or arbitrary demand by the respondents and the allegations to the contra in the complaint are false and hence denied. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief or directions as prayed for in the original complaint. There is no exorbitant or illegal demands by the opposite parties and the allegation to the contra are false and hence denied. The complainant has approached this Forum for unjust enrichment.
- In view of the above pleadings the following points arise for consideration :-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs and sought for?
- Reliefs and costs?
8. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidencePW1 and Ext.A1 to A15 documents.The respondents have not adduced any oral evidence.However the opposite parties have got marked Ext.B1 to B3 documents.
Heard the counsel for the complainant.The leaned counsel for the opposite parties have neither filed any notes of argument nor advanced any argument.The counsel for the complainant has also not filed any notes or argument.
9. Points No.1
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 2 points are together.Admittedly the complainant is a subscriber of the mobile service of the opposite parties having Mob No. 09249465043 which is a post paid connection.The further case of the complainant is that during the month of August 2015 he requested 1st opposite party for International Roaming facility.Accordingly the opposite parties offered an attractive package to the complainant.As per the offer Rs. 40/min. For international Roaming on 11/09/2015 the complainant reached at “Turkey” in connection with his business and thereafter he used his mobile connection on the same day and on the next day.The specific case of the complainant is that he attended the incoming calls and outgoing calls for 1 hr 28min and 7 sec for both days together and thereafter the opposite parties disconnected the service to the above mobile phone without prior notice or warning to the complainant and same caused heavy financial loss apart from mental agony and hence the complainant prays to award compensation.
The complainant would admit during cross examination by the leaned counsel for the opposite parties that he had availed internet roaming service of Turkcell which is a private telecom company.However Ext.A1documents would indicate that if the complainant is availing service Vodafonethen only he is entitled toget international roaming facility at the rate of Rs. 40/min and that he has not availed the service of that mobile phone company.The complainant has also not contacted.But he could not select it.He was also not contact the customer care centre as stipulated in Ext.A1 document nor requested to activate the international roaming facility of the Vodafone.In view of the above admissions it is clear that the offer was to use the international roaming facility of the Vodafone.But complainant used the international roaming facility of the opposite parties and hence the bill Rs. 34,000/- was issued by the opposite parties. It is also admitted by PW1during cross examination that he had not and he has not paid the bill amount in time.
According to the PW1 he has not applied for Europe pack as offered in Ext. A1.As the complainant was usinginternational Roaming facility offered by Turkcell company which is a private telecommunication which has been functioning at Turkey, the opposite parties who are TATA Docomo and TATA tele service ltdcannot be asked to pay compensation nor.Any deficiency in service can be attributed on the side of the above opposite parties.Even as perthe specific terms in Ext.A1 documents dated 11/09/2015, it is clear thatin order to enjoyee roaming facility at “Turkey” the complainant he has to activate Europepack by contacting customer care service Vodafone but admittedlyhe has not contacted the customer care service of Vodafone company. The rate per minute shown in Ext.A1 is in respect of Vodafone company and not relating TATA Docomo Turk cell functioning at the state of Turkey.Even according to the PW1, Ext.A2 is theE-mail dated 14/09/2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.It is also clear from Ext.A9 documents that credit limit of the complainant that TATA Docomo is Rs. 6,500/- only.In view of the admission of PW1 and Ext.A2 email it is clear that the complainant was having only credit limit of Rs. 6,500/- and the use of International Roaming Facility has exceededthe limit and used for Rs. 36,000/- within 2 days.Hence the Trukcell company which has provided the international roaming facility has blocked system of International Roaming used by the complainant, for which the opposite parties cannot to blamed.
In view of the materials availableon record including the terms and conditions stipulated in Ext.A2 email we find that there is no deficiency in serviceon the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is not entitledto get any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint. These 2 points answered accordingly.
Point No.3
In view of our finding with regard to point No. 1 and 2 the complaint is only to be dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 15th day of September, 2018.
Sd/- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/- Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
