Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.11.2017 of the Ld. DCDRC Kolkata—I (North) passed in CC/414/2014 by the Complainant/Appellant.
Fact of the case in brief, according to the Complaint is that the Complainant purchased two Indonesia Bali (international) SIM cards to be used in the mobile (Mob no. 089603007112) of the Complainant and in the mobile (Mob no. 89603007294) of his wife, where date pack was duly activated. The SIM cards were purchased from M/s Matrix Cellular Pvt Ltd for trip to Bali with his wife from 10.12.2013 to 15.12.2013. Complainant alleged that the SIM card retained with his mobile had not been activated though Complainant specifically asked the O.P to activate both the SIM card with data pack. After returning from Indonesia they came to know that a bill was raised in favour of his wife by misspelling her name as Neena Kumari Kedia in place of Mrs Neha Kumari Kedia having serial no. MIND 3365933 dated 09.01.2014 amounting to Rs. 54,525.72 and another bill was also raised in favour of the Complainant amount to Rs. 1,634.70. In respect of the former bill Complainant raised strong objection and wrote a letter dated 27.02.2014 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. But O.P did not respond to this allegation. Finding no other alternative Complainant lodged this Complaint praying with the direction upon the O.Ps to apologize for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant and to correct the bill and refund the amount along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
On hearing both sides, Ld. DCDRC dismissed the Complaint Case being aggrieved with the said order, Complainant filed the instant Appeal.
Heard the submission of Ld. Advocate of the Appellant only as the case runs ex parte here.
Now the reason for dismissal of the Complaint Case as per Ld. DCDRC is as follows:-
“It is pointed out by the OP that Complainant had not made any payment till the date of lodging this complaint. Moreover, the bill of Rs.5425.72 was objected by the Complainant by saying that it was much in excess of what was legally due. Complainant has failed to point out any discrepancy i.r.o usage charges under bill in question during the period of using the mobile set abroad. Complainant raised question against consideration. Question against consideration is solely a matter of the Complainant himself. Nobody will act in reference is brought aside against price calculation. Complainant did bring no such references on the basis of which the bill raised by the O.P amounting to Rs. 54,525.72 can be objected. On this score the allegation of Complainant against the consideration stands defeated.”
Perused the Complaint Case. The relief sought for therein:-
- Direct the Opposite Parties to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the Complainant.
- Direct the Opposite Parties to correct the bill and refund the amount due.
Both two reliefs are not objective in nature and beyond the scope of adjudication. Price-determination is beyond the scope of C.P. Act, 1986.
In view of the same, the instant Appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed.
