DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 91/2015
Date of Institution : 11.05.2015
Date of Decision : 19.10.2015
Bhagwant Singh S/o Narinder Singh resident of H.No. B-XI-2758, Mittal Street, Barnala, Distt. Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Unique Infotech Telecom, Anaj Mandi Road, Near Saravhitkari Vidya Mandir, Barnala through its Prop./Partner.
Vodafone South Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali-160071 through its Managing Director.
VFMS NESH Telecom, K.C. Road, Near Dr. Vijay, Barnala through its Prop./Partner.
M/s Varun Enterprises (Authorized dealer and Billing Centre of Idea), K.C. Road, Opp. Dr. Pabbi through its Prop. Varun Mittal, Barnala.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. R.K. Singla counsel for the complainant.
Sh. K.R. Goel counsel for the opposite party No. 2.
The opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Bhagwant Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against Unique Infotech Telecom & Others (hereinafter called as the opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a corporate plan from the opposite party No. 1 & 2 for his mobile nos. 9872636920, 9888657530, 9417564720, 7837317940, 9041195866, which means that all these mobile nos. are free to each other for 24 hours a day. This was opted in the month of October 2014. The opposite party No. 1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 3 is the authorized Billing Centre of opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 4 is the authorized dealer and Billing Centre of Idea Mobile Company. It is further averred that the complainant purchased internet plan of Rs. 199/- for the month of October 2014 for his mobile No. 9888657530 and in the month of November 2014, the complainant opted a Combo Internet plan of Rs. 766/-. However, the complainant received bill for the month of November 2014, which included charges of Combo Plan + Earlier Plan of Rs. 199/-. The complainant approached the opposite parties No. 1 & 3 for the rectification of the said bill stating that he has opted Combo Internet Plan after withdrawing the earlier plan. Moreover, when the Combo Plan has been purchased, the question of running the earlier plan of Rs. 199/- did not arise. On this the opposite parties asked the complainant to deposit the amount of said bill and excess amount charged would be refunded by them. It is further averred that due to poor billing services, on 9.12.2014 the complainant shifted to Idea Mobile Company. The opposite party No. 4 wrongly charged an amount of Rs. 84/- for the period from 1.1.2015 to 31.1.2015 as SMS charges and charged Rs. 23/- for the period from 1.2.2015 to 28.2.2015 as SMS charges and charged Rs. 18/- for the period from 15.12.2014 to 31.12.2014. Then the complainant approached the opposite party No. 4 all the times for the withdrawal of SMS charges as the complainant never used SMS facility or otherwise give the detail of use of SMS facility. But the opposite party No. 4 did not listen to the complainant.
3. It is further averred that even the opposite party No. 4 stopped the services of Mobile No. 9872636920 many times in the month of March 2015 without any notice, alleging that a sum of Rs. 292.50 is due against Mobile No. 9888657530 and Rs. 25.45 is due against Mobile No. 9872636920 towards Vodafone Mobile company inspite of the fact that the complainant has already deposited the said amount vide receipt No. 376791 dated 10.2.2015.
4. It is further averred that due to poor network and poor billing of opposite party No. 4, the complainant again shifted to opposite parties No. 1 to 3. It is further averred that on 9.3.2015 the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 promised to convert all the five numbers to Vodafone network, but did not convert the Mobile No. 9888657530 till date as per their promise. Due to which the said Mobile Number did not enjoy the free corporate plan facility with other four Mobile Numbers. Further when the complainant approached the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 for the conversion of said number into the corporate plan, the said opposite parties alleged that the complainant had not paid earlier bill of Vodafone as such the said Mobile Number has been left out of corporate plan. It is further averred that the complainant showed all the earlier bill payment receipts, but the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 avoided the complainant on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to accede to the request of the complainant. It is further averred that even Vodafone nos. 9872636920, 7837317940, 9041195866, 9417564720 were stopped by the opposite parties No. 1 to 3 without any notice on 25.4.2015, 27.4.2015, 28.4.2015 and 29.4.2015 respectively alleging that an amount of Rs. 82.77, 143.85, 126.10 and 230.74 has not been paid by the complainant to the Idea Company. It was alleged that the act of the opposite parties falls within the deficiency in service and un fair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To refund the excess amount charged by them alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit till realization.
To regularize the corporate plan of all the five numbers.
To start the services of all the five numbers mentioned above and not to disconnect the services without giving any notice.
To pay Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.
To pay Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony and harassment.
5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 2 appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of maintainability, supressing of material facts and locus-standi. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant in the month of October 2014 had taken Internet plan of Rs. 199/- from the answering opposite party. But it is denied that the complainant had opted to take a Combo Internet plan of Rs. 766/-. It is further denied that in the month of November 2014, the complainant had received a bill for the month of November 2014 in which the charges of Combo Plan + Earlier Plan of Rs. 199/- has been imposed by the answering opposite party. Rather, the bill for the month of November 2014 was generated in accordance with the Internet Plan of Rs. 199/- took by the complainant. However, they have denied that the complainant had approached the answering opposite party regarding the billing dispute. They have also denied that the answering opposite party gave any assurance to the complainant for the refund of the excess bill amount. Infact the complainant had opted to take only Internet Plan of Rs. 199/- and no other Combo Plan as stated by the complainant was taken by the complainant and therefore there is no question of any billing dispute. It is further averred that after availing the world class services provided by the answering opposite party had shifted to some other operator only for the reason of non-payment of the outstanding dues towards the invoices generated by the answering opposite party. It is further averred that the complainant had again shifted mobile services from opposite party No. 4 to the answering opposite party and therefore there is no deficiency in service. Rather, the complainant only in order to cause huge loss to the reputation and business of the opposite party has initiated this false and baseless litigation against them. However, they have denied that they had promised the complainant to convert all five mobile numbers to their network. Rather, the complainant approached them to activate the said connections whereby it was informed to the complainant that the said connections can only be again transferred into the mobile network of the answering opposite party after completion of all the necessary formalities under MNP (Mobile Number Portability) guidelines. It is further averred that after the guidelines provided by the answering opposite party, the complainant went to the Donor Operator and thereafter the request was received by the answering opposite party in accordance with the MNP guidelines. Thereafter, the answering opposite party in accordance with the guidelines issued by Department of Telecommunication (DOT) had conducted the address verification of the said mobile connection bearing No. 9888657530 whereby the physical verification went negative and for this reason the said connection remained suspended. Thus, the averments made by the complainant that the said connection remained suspended due to non-payment of the outstanding due towards the said connection are a bundle of lies and hence denied in toto. However, the said mobile connection of the complainant was activated on 27.3.2015 after proper address verification and currently it is an active stage. It is further averred that the mobile connections bearing nos. 9872636920, 7837, 9041195866, 9417564720 were barred by the answering opposite party due to non-payment of the outstanding dues towards the Donor Operator (Idea Cellular Limited) and as such the answering opposite party has acted in complete compliance with th guidelines mentioned under Mobile Number Portability by suspending the said connections till date.
6. It is further averred that later the complainant approached the answering opposite party and deposited the dues vide receipt dated 20.4.2015 pertaining to the payment of the outstanding dues towards the Donor Operator (Idea Cellular Limited) and then they activated the said services and till date the said services are in active state. Hence, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on their part and finally prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. The opposite parties No. 1, 3 & 4 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.6.2015.
8. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bills Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-22 and closed the evidence.
9. In order to rebut the case of complainant, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashutosh Kalia Deputy General Manager Ex.O.P2/1, copy of notification dated 23.9.2009 Ex.O.P2/2, copy of instructions dated 9.10.2012 Ex.O.P2/3, copy of bill dated 19.12.2014 Ex.O.P2/4 and closed the evidence.
10. We have heard the Ld. for the parties and have gone through the evidence tendered by both the parties.
11. In the written arguments as well as oral arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant, it is contented that firstly the complainant purchased Internet plan of Rs. 199/- for the month of October 2014 for his Mobile No. 9888657530. But in the month of November 2014, the complainant opted a Combo Internet plan of Rs. 766/- approx. It is further contented that the said Combo Internet plan also includes the earlier Internet scheme of Rs. 199/-. However, the opposite parties sent a bill of Rs. 953.73 Ex.C-6 from 1.11.2014 to 30.11.2014, including the Internet charges of Rs. 199/- and the opposite parties are not competent to charge the said Internet charges of Rs. 199/-.
12. On the other hand the Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties contented that the complainant has opted to take only Internet plan of Rs. 199/- and no other Combo plan has been taken by the complainant. Moreover, the bill for the month of November 2014 was generated in accordance with the Internet plan of Rs. 199/- taken by the complainant and there is no billing dispute & there is no deficiency in service on their part.
13. The short question in this case is whether the complainant has purchased the Combo plan of Rs. 766/-, which includes the Internet plan of Rs. 199/-. The complainant has placed on record bill Ex.C-6, which shows the charges of Rs. 199/- for 1.11.2014 to 30.11.2014 and other monthly charges amounting to Rs. 745.73. However, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant has purchased the Combo plan of Rs. 766/- including the Internet plan of Rs. 199/-. The onus to prove this fact was on the complainant. However, the complainant has miserably failed to prove this, therefore it cannot be held that the complainant has purchased a Combo plan as referred to above.
14. On the other hand the opposite party No. 2 has placed on record an affidavit of Ashutosh Kalia Deputy General Manager Ex.O.P2/1 and the copy of bill Ex.O.P2/4 running into pages from 1 to 38 dated 19.12.2014. This shows the details of the calls as well as the Internet messages made by the complainant. However, the complainant has not led any evidence to show that the said record is fabricated.
15. In view of the voluminous evidence produced by the opposite parties explaining each call and Internet usage, it cannot be held that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
16. No other point is raised by both the parties.
17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
19th Day of October, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
