SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for getting an order directing opposite parties 1) To reconnect the mobile numbers in the CG-Group connection of the complainant 2) To cancel the bill dated 25/11/2019 issued by the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.2,13,439/- 3) To pay financial loss and compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Case of complainant that he is a consumer of OPs.  The complainant is doing business for eking his livelihood.  For the smooth functioning of the business and to have a regular contact between the staff and family the complainant has taken 10 postpaid mobile connections from the 1st OP in the scheme, CG-Group connections for his relatives and staff.  Mobile connections were used by the complainant for his business purposes also.  These numbers were widely circulated among the dealers, agencies and other customers. The complainant took a new connection in the month of April 2019 with mobile number 7902995252 which also included in that CG-Group connection for the usage purpose of his son Riza Rahuman.  The mobile connection of the Riza Rahuman was taken by the complainant for his son.  Being a student the complainant is managing the affairs of Riza Rahuman.  The said Riza Rahuman went abroad for studies and the complainant contacted the staff of 1^st OP and asked about the roaming plan of the mobile service of OP No.1.   As advised by the staff of 1^st OP and as it was affordable the complainant asked the OP staff to activate the roaming plan and the complainant’s son regularly used the mobile connection bearing No.7902995252.  The roaming plan was activated continuously and lastly it was activated from 08/10/2019 to 05/11/2019.  As the said Riza Rahuman was having tight examination schedule he could not use the mobile phone as he normally used daily.  On 4^th and 5^th of November 2019 and he could not check the text messages also. Thereafter the phone was automatically cut off and the only Riza Rahuman noted the same.  When he enquired with the staff of the OP they informed him that the total charge for the usage of the said mobile number from 05/11/2019 midnight to 06/11/2019 is 1,79,825/- and including the GST and cess the total amount is Rs.2,13,439/-.  The complainant immediately contacted the staff of 1^st OP and enquired about the reason for such a huge bill for such a short period.  Without giving a proper reply they just gave some evasive answers.  Moreover the mobile sim number in the group connection were deactivated by the OPs.  When the complainant asked about the reason for such deactivation they told him that without the payment of the bill amount they will not reactivate the mobile numbers in the group connection.  The OPs issued the bill for a huge amount without any basis .  The bill issued by the OPs are against the norms laid down by the TRAI and it is arbitrary and legal.

The OPs disconnected the mobile connections in the group connection of the Idea (Vodafone) taken by the complainant as CG-Group connection without any prior notice.  The disconnection of the numbers, which were used by the complainant and his staff for their job purpose, without any intimation, has caused great inconvenience and hardships to the complainant.  After several requests the OPs reactivated the mobile numbers of the complainant’s group connection.  Although the complainant several times tried to talk with the OPs about the cancellation of the bill for Rs.2,13,439/- they were not ready for any settlement. After a short period they again disconnected the mobile numbers in the CG-Group connection.  The complainant sent a lawyer notice dated 09/01/2020 to the OPs.  Although the OPs acknowledged the lawyer notice they have not sent any reply.  Hence this complaint.

            Opposite parties filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts.  It is submitted that the OPs provide normal acceptable standard of service to its subscribers.  The terms and conditions of the subscription agreed by the complainant is binding on the complainant.  It is submitted that Telecom Disputes are subject to adjudication by the expert technical agency or adjudicating authority as per Indian Telegraph Act and TRAI Act 1997.  Further submitted that the subject matter of dispute is outside the ambit of this Honorable forum based on the subscriber application in the name of Century Fiber Foams, the connection had been availed under CUG Scheme.  The subject matter reference number in the complaint was under the above group connection.  The pros and cons of usages or omissions/commissions in relation to one connection shall apply to all the other CUG numbers as well.  The subject matter mobile number 7902995252 had been placed for IR Roaming facilities on 08/10/2019 where upon the necessary and essential IR Pack had also been activated by the subscriber to get the benefit of discounts and subsidies during IR usage and the very usage pack itself is conspicuous and unambiguous stating that the pack shall be activate for 28 days from 08/10/2019 and obviously expires on 05/11/2019 at 11.59 pm IST. (Corresponding time of UAE, 10.30 pm)  It is contended that the customer extensively used the connection but failed to reactivate the IR Pack at 10.30 PM.  UAE time corresponding to 11.59 PM IST.  On non-reactivation of pack, automatically after 11.59 pm IST, the benefits of the pack got extinguished as per which the normal usage charges had been made applicable.  The customer did not even reactivate the same for the next 2 days as well and finally on substantial usage and addition of charges in the bill, on account of excess usage crossing the deposit provided by the customer the connection got deactivated.  The usage charges accumulated for the disputed connection alone at the time of deactivation is Rs.1,79,285/- excluding GST and applicable taxes whereas the total outstanding of the Group connections are Rs.2,17,928.51 (including taxes).  For the deactivation and for the accumulation of charges outside the package rates the customer alone is responsible and is bound to pay the entire usage charges immediately. It is further submitted that a submitted above in the case of CUG group connection on account of excess usages and accumulation of substantial outstanding, all the CUG connections got suspended and succumb to natural plight as per the agreed terms.   In the circumstances the allegations as about excess charging deactivation etc. are absolutely baseless and incorrect.  The bill dated 25/11/2019 is absolutely in tune and at par with the usage at applicable rates of the connections.  The complainant is not entitled to reactivation of connections without payment of the outstanding amount much less for waiver of the outstanding bill amount to the tune of Rs.2,17,928.51/-.  Further complainant is not entitled to get alleged financial loss happened to him or compensation from OPs and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            Complainant was examined as Pw1, and marked Ext.A1. OP has not adduced oral evidence one document produced marked as Ext.B1.  After that both learned counsels of the parties filed their written argument notes.

            The 1^st plea raised by the OP is that the dispute in this case is liable to be trial within the ambit of Telecom Disputes Act and adjudication of the disputes must be by an expert agency.

            With regard to said point, it is a settled position that in the case of disputes relating to cell phones, and billing disputes, consumers Forum have Jurisdiction over such disputes. The 1^st point is answered in favour of complainant. OP further pleaded that the new connection availed by the complainant for his son had a plan which got activated on 08/10/2019 and expired on 05/11/2019.  According to OP, though the complainant’s son used the connection extensively, he had failed to reactivate the IR Pact –since the complainant failed to reactivate the connection on time, all benefits accorded to that connection under IR PACT got extinguished.  More over when the complainant failed thereafter too to reactivate the connection within two days of the expiry of the term and cost of usage crossed the accumulated deposit, the connection got deactivated.  Then the usage charge was Rs.1,79,285/- excluding GST and including GST, the amount was 2,17,928.51/.  So the OP issued bill for the same.  According to OPs, there was not any kind of negligence from their part in deactivating the connection.  Further contended that if the         complainant had reactivated the connection on time all benefits under the plan could have been accrued to him.  Also stated that due to the extensive use of connection by the son of complainant, the bill got accumulated to such rate.

            On the other hand complainant has stated that due to the tight examination schedule, his son could not check the text messages sent by OP on 4^th and 5^th November 2019 and thereafter when the phone was automatically cut off, he noted the same.  Complainant alleged that when he contacted the OP and asked about the details they gave some evasive answers.  Further the other mobile numbers in the group connection were deactivated by the OPs and the OP had not activated the numbers without payment of the bill.  Complainant further alleged that the bill issued by OPs is against the norms laid down by the TRAI and it is arbitrary and illegal.  OP has not given any tariff plan or chart to the complainant to know about the actual charges.  According to complainant the above said action of OP amount to deficiency of service and hence OP is liable to cancel the disputed bill (Ext.A1).

            On verifying the fact of this case we may observe that complainant admittedly availed of her mobile phone services of OP up to midnight 06/11/2019. And there is no dispute that complainant had paid all the mobile phone bill except the disputed bill.  Further there is no dispute that complainant has not made any payment regarding the use of his son’s connection for the period commencing from 25/10/2019 to 25/11/2019.  The dispute is with regard to the bill for the above said duration.  It is significant to note that in Ext.B1 bill, OP has charges Roaming charged amount as the connection was activated the roaming plan as per the request of complainant.  Ext.A1 shows the details of calls date, duration time, and network name.  During cross-examination, Pw1 also admitted that his son had used the mobile connection in the period mentioned in Ext.A1 bill.  Complainant has no case that OP has charged for unused calls.  Further Pw1 admitted that the connection was activated during the period from 08/10/2019 to 05/11/2019 his son failed to reactivate the connection on time even after sending messages from the side of OP to reactivate the connection on 04/11/2019 and 05/11/2019.  Pw1 further admitted that due to the said reason Ext.B1 bill was issued to him.  Complainant’s version is that his son could not reactivate solely due to his tight scheduled examination.  But no evidence has been produced from the side of complainant to substantiate the said averment.  Further there is no evidence to show that his son went to abroad for higher studies.  Ext.A1 shows that the son of complainant has used the mobile connection extensively.  On perusal of Ext.B1, the bill was issued on 25/11/2019, calculated the current charges.  Monthly charges Rs.2974.26, Usage charges Rs.847.84 and Roaming charges Rs.1,79,285 GST charges Rs.16,474.45. Total amount Rs.2,17,828.51.

Thus the total liability of the complainant was accelerated to RS.2,17,828.51/-.  In this way, complainant was liable to make payment of the disputed bill Rs.2,17,828.51/- In Ext.B1 bill no late fee has been imposed.

            In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, no fault could be found on the part of opposite party in deactivated the connection of mobile number by not paying the bill.  Excess bill amount was happened to be issued due to the fault on the part of complainant’s side.  Hence we cannot blame opposite party.  It is evident that opposite party is ready to activate the connections on payment of the bill amount.  In this contest we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties

            In the result complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Exts.

A1        - Telephone bill dated25/11/2019

B1        - Summary of charges and statement of accounts

Pw1     - Complainant

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar