BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 16th August 2010
COMPLAINT NO.52/2010
(Admitted on 6.2.2010)
PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, President
2.Smt.Lavanya M. Rai, Member
BETWEEN:
Dr.Venugopal. D.,
So late P.Shayam Bhat,
Aged 41 years,
Residing at Flat No.303,
Divya Mahal Apartments,
Karngalpady,
Mangalore, D.K. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri K.S.Sharma)
VERSUS
1. The Managing Director,
VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.,
C 48, Okhla Industrial Area,
Phase II, New Delhi 110 020.
2. The Principal Officer,
VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.,
Maruthi Infotech Centre, Ground Floor,
‘B’ Block, No.11/1, 12/1, Koramangala,
Intermediate Ring road,
Amar Jyothi Layout,
Bangalore-560 007.
3. The Manager,
VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD.,
Store at Empire Commercial Complex,
M.G.Road,
Mangalore. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.1 and 3: Exparte)
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri Udaya Prakash Muliya)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant submits that, he has obtained the internet service connection known as ‘Mobile Connect’ to his Laptop with effect from 22.12.2008 from the Opposite Parties and he has become consumer of the service provided by the Opposite Parties. It is stated that, as per their data plan, the Opposite Parties have collected Rs.6,740/- subscription charge for one year service and also Rs.399/- towards the deposit and additional fee from the Complainant. The Opposite Parties have issued a receipt dated 22.12.2008 in favour of the Complainant. As per the usage scheme the Opposite Party provided to the tune of 1 GB per month is free for period of one year and the Complainant is liable to pay usage charge to the Opposite Parties over and above the stipulated usage limit of 1 G.B. per month. It is stated that, the Complainant did not cross over 1 G.B. per month during period of said service was subsisting. This being the fact, the Opposite Party No.3 at Mangalore issued a bill dated 5.9.2009 for the period 5.8.2008 to 4.9.2009 for Rs.4,530/- payable on or before 23.9.2009. It is stated that, the Complainant never used the service of the Opposite Parties more than the stipulated usage for all these times. It is contended that, the Opposite Parties have raised first bill dated 5.1.2009 mentioning the bill period from 5.12.2008 to 4.1.2009 for total charge of Rs.6,782/- out of which Rs.41/- mentioned as amounts due. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties have never sent any bill to the Complainant till 5.9.2009 as his usage was well within the limit of 1 G.B. per month. It is stated that, the Complainant received a bill dated 5.9.2009 for the first time after the first bill claiming Rs.4,530/-. The Complainant disputed the correctness of the said bill on the ground that he has not used the internet service beyond 1 GB attracting liability to pay the said amount. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties again raised bill dated 5.10.2009 for the period 5.9.2009 to 4.10.2009 for Rs.4,640/-. The Complainant has disputed the said bill asked the Opposite Party No.3 to furnish usage details right from the installation of internet to his Laptop till date. But Opposite Party No.3 failed to do the same. Aggrieved by the above said acts, the Complainant got issued legal notice dated 5.11.2009 to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 through R.P.A.D. and the same has been served to the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties instead of complying the said demand, made false reply and hence the above Complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to pass an order quashing the bill dated 5.9.2009 and 5.10.2009, directing the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,139/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 22.12.2008 till the date for disconnection of internet service to the laptop of the Complainant arbitrarily and illegally and also pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party No.1 and 3 despite serving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against Opposite Party No.1 and 3. The postal acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2.
Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel filed version stated that the Complainant obtained the Internet Service connection to his Laptop to the tune of 1 G.B. for the period of one year was free but he has to pay the usage charge over and above the stipulated limit 1 G.B. per month. It is stated that, the bill was issued as per the usage and not otherwise. It is stated that, the billing details are also available in the website belonging to the Opposite Parties and hence the demand made by the Complainant and non-receipt of the details is false. The Complainant having availed the facility and having used the same cannot seek refund of the amount. Further stated that, the Complainant never requested the Opposite Party to furnish the item wise usage accounts and this Opposite Party is not in receipt of any such communications nor the Complainant approached Grievances Cell of the Opposite Party. The allegations of harassment to the family members of the Complainant using abusive language is far from truth and contended that there is no deficiency and not liable to pay any compensation for the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Dr.Venugopal (CW1) filed her affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex.C1 to C8 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.Pradeep, Senior Executive of the Opposite Party filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Doc.No.1 to 3 were produced for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. Both the parties are produced written notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case it is admitted that, the Complainant was the subscriber of internet service connection known as ‘Mobile Connect’ from the Opposite Parties on 22.12.2008. Under the said service, the usage of internet connection to the tune of 1 GB per month is free for a period of one year and the Complainant is liable to pay the usage charge to the Opposite Parties over and above the stipulated usage limit of 1 GB per month (as per Ex C6).
Now the point in dispute before this Forum is that, the usage of the Complainant did not cross over one GB per month during the period of said service was subsisting. This being the fact, the Complainant received a inflated bill dated 5.9.2009 for the period 5.8.2009 to 4.9.2009 for Rs.4,530/- payable on or before 23.9.2009. It is stated that, to know the details of usage made by the Complainant sought for usage details right from the installation of internet to his laptop till the date. But the Opposite Parties not issued the same and disconnected the internet service, hence this complaint.
The Opposite Parties on the other hand denied the allegation and contended that the amount claimed by them is correct and there is no deficiency.
The Complainant filed affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C8 and Opposite Party also filed evidence and produced three documents.
On careful scrutiny of the oral as well as documentary evidence in proof of their respective contentions, we find that, the Complainant was the subscriber of aforesaid internet service and under the said service the Complainant was provided free usage of 1 GB per month during the period of said service was subsisting. It could be seen on record that, the Opposite Parties have raised 1st bill dated 5.1.2009 i.e., Ex C1 mentioning bill period 5.12.2008 to 4.1.2009 for a total charge of Rs.6,782/- out of which Rs.41/- only was mentioned as amount due. However, it could be seen that the Opposite Party not demanded for any payment nor sent any bill to the Complainant till 5.9.2009. That means, his usage was well within the limit of 1 GB per month. The Opposite Parties sent the Ex C2 dated 5.9.2009 i.e., after almost 8 months by raising a bill for the period from 5.8.2009 to 4.9.2009 for the 1st time claiming Rs.4,530/- as due. The Complainant disputed the correctness of the above bill and issued a legal notice dated 5.11.2009 to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by RPAD and the same has been served to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and called for to furnish the usage details right from the installation of internet to his laptop till the date and disputed the bill. When that being the case, the Opposite Parties shall provide the usage details as sought by the Complainant in order to substantiate their correctness of the subsequent bill issued by them. But it could be seen on record that, the Opposite Parties not furnished the usage details right from the internet connection till date. No doubt, the Opposite Parties took a contention that, they have produced the extract of itemized calls and the details of usage and relied the document No.1 i.e., itemized calls particulars for the period 5.8.2009 to 4.9.2009. But in the given case, the Complainant sought for itemized usage right from the internet connection till date. But the Opposite Parties stated that, the billing details are available in their website but no such website details were produced before this Forum to justify their claim made to the Complainant.
On the other hand we are surprised to note that, why the Opposite Parties not provided the details of itemized calls right from the internet connection till date when the Complainant disputed the correctness of the bill. Is there any provision for not furnishing a detailed break up of the calls made at the relevant point of time. A detailed brake up of the calls furnished by the Opposite Parties on the alleged internet service only pertaining to the period 5.8.2009 to 4.8.2009 and not from the usage details right from the installation of internet till date. Hence, we do not agree with the Opposite Parties that the bill raised by them is correct. When the correctness of the bill disputed by the Complainant, it is the duty of the Opposite Parties to furnish/substantiate that right from the internet connection till date the bill issued by them is correct and there is no erupt on their claim. Since the Opposite Parties failed to produce the break up of the calls or itemized calls from the date of internet connection till date we hold that the bill issued by the Opposite Parties cannot be considered as genuine.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the bill issued by the Opposite Parties dated 05.09.2009 and 05.10.2009 is not correct is hereby quashed. By considering the above facts and circumstances, we award Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for the deficiency of service and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. We hereby quash the disputed bill dated 05.09.2009 and 05.10.2009 issued by the Opposite Parties. Apart from that, Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 10 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 16th day of August 2010.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Dr.Venugopal – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 5.1.2009: Bill for the period 5.12.2009 to 4.1.2009.
Ex C2 – 5.9.2009: bill for the period 5.8.2009 to 4.9.2009.
Ex C3 – 5.10.2009: Bill for the period 5.9.2009 to 4.10.2009.
Ex C4 – 5.11.2009: Lawyer’s notice got issued to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 along with postal Receipts.
Ex C5 – Postal Acknowledgement.
Ex C6 –22.12.2008: Xerox copy of the receipts issued by the Opposite Party No.3 (2 in Nos.)
Ex C7 – 30.12.2009: Reply notice got issued by the Opposite Parties.
Ex C8 – 23.1.2010: Reply notice got issued by the Complainant for reply notice of the Opposite Party dated 30.12.2009 with Postal Receipts.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW-1 : Mr.Pradeep, Senior Executive of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Doc. No.1: Copy of Itemized Call Details.
Doc No.2: Copy of Details of No.1.19935982 of the Complainant.
Doc.No.3: Copy of Summary of the current charges.
Dated:16.08.2010 PRESIDENT
