By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Complaint in short is as follows: -
1. The complainant was the subscriber of mobile telecom service connections for 19 years. He availed service from ESCOTEL. His subscription number was 9847016610. He was one of the pioneers / premium customers of Escotel mobile service connection during his launching days itself. Subsequently Escotel mobile services were taken over by Idea limited. Now the idea service provider and Vodafone limited has collaborated and became one company and they presently known by the name Vodafone – Idea. Even then the complainant continued their service without any break. Being the managing director of a hospital and the said mobile service connection number is very important and essential not only for him but also for the general public. Many poor patients are contacting the complainant through this number seeking help for their treatment. Similarly, this number is popular among his family, friends, doctors’ other hospital staff and many of his business associates. However, this mobile service is exclusively used for his personal contacts and not as corporate or commercial connection. There are many other phone connections in the hospital as well as in other firms.
2. The complainant used to go abroad with this mobile connection. Whenever he intent to visit other countries, before leaving India, he will ask the service provider to activate the roaming packs of the country he visits. So that the complainant can use the phone and data in the roaming tariff likewise the complainant visited Mauritius form November 9 to November 14, 2018. He flew to Mauritius via Dubai on 9th November 2018. Before leaving India as usual he asked service provider / opposite party to activate roaming pack. One Mr, Hakeem belongs to the Perinthalmannna office of the opposite parties activated the roaming pack with the following details-
I - Roam for 7 days
Data 2 GB
Calls: 200 minutes outgoing, unlimited incoming
SMS: 25 SMS out going, unlimited incoming
the rate of this package was Rs.2999/-.
3. After activating this roaming pack, the complainant left India to Mauritius via Dubai. As per the above scheme the opposite parties should have provided 200 minutes outgoing calls and 2 GB data. But from Mauritius he used the data less than 200 Mb. The complainant returns after 5 days on 14 November 2018.
4. But as per the invoice dated 05/12/2018 with invoice No. KLP 00007624324 reference No.0466502233, the complainant was served with an exorbitant bill for Rs.23,4244.23/- (Rupees two lakh thirty-four thousand two hundred and forty-four and paisa twenty-three only). In that bill Rs.1,93,761/- (Rupees one lakh ninety-three thousand seven hundred and sixty-one only) is charged as Roaming charges. This is no way tally with the usage of the complainant and it is not within the purview of the roaming pack activated. In this bill Rs.2,999/- also included in the head as other head credits and charges.
5. The complainant submit that he is no way liable to pay this exorbitant bill as it is against the scheme provided by the opposite parties. Opposite parties should not have charged exorbitant amount as roaming charges when he has activated the roaming pack before going Mauritius and that is evident from the bill generated and issued to the complainant. Receiving the exorbitant bill complainant contacted many of the officials of the opposite party and initially they agreed to settle the bill after collecting the charges excluding the roaming charges Rs.1,93,761/- and it is corresponding central and state GST Rs.17,865/- + Rs 17,865/- i.e., Rs.35,630/-. But later they refused to revise the bill. They finally told that Rs.60,000/- can be deducted. Since the complainant is no way liable to pay that amount also, he refused that offer. The complainant is liable to pay only the balance amount towards the exorbitant bill. That would be Rs.4,853/- i.e., Rs.2,34,244.23/- - 2,29,391/- (1,93,761 + 35,630) = Rs.4,853/-. Complainant is always willing to pay this amount with his central and state GST’s.
6. As the complainant refused to pay the exorbitant bill which he is not liable to pay legally, the opposite parties barred the outgoing calls and when the complainant protested, it was activated. This barring of outgoing calls repeated several times and finally on 22nd May 2019 his 19-year-old mobile connection is permanently disconnected by the opposite parties giving little value to one of their valuable premier customers. This has caused much mental agony to the complainant. He could not make many important calls. He is forced to cancel many appointments. Many programs, meetings etc are cancelled. For the past 19 years complainant as using this number on an apparent look itself the opposite party acted illegally and committed gross deficiency in service. The attempt of the opposite party is to exploit a consumer unscrupulously. The bill does not explain what is basis for such huge bill and what is tariff for claim such enormous amount for a very little usage. The act of the opposite party amounts serious deficiency in service as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complainant prays for compensation on account of loss, hardship and mental agony sustained by the complainant due to the illegal disconnection of the mobile connection.
7. The complainant submits that as per the TRAI, the telecom consumers protection (8th amendment), Regulation in August 2015 as per 10 A of the same every service provider shall through SMS or USSD (Unstructured Supplementary Service Data) to all consumer of the cellular mobile telephone on whose mobile phone data services were activated after 10Mb of use by the consumer, the quantum of data used during a session. At no point of time the complainant received such an information in his mobile nor did the opposite parties sent such messages.
8. The complainant availed this mobile phone connection while the Escotel mobile connection has got the regional office at Kozhikode. Hence considering the territorial jurisdiction the complainant filed complaint before District Forum, Kozhikode. Subsequently the opposite party entered appearance and challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum Calicut in the matter of C.C.194/2019. Meanwhile there was an interlocutory application 252/2019 seeking interim order against the opposite parties to restore the mobile phone connection 9847016610 after hearing the parties the Forum pleased to pass an interim order directing the opposite parties to restore the mobile phone connection on a condition to pay ¼ of the bill amount . Accordingly, the complainant remitted an amount of Rs.66,643/- on 08/07/2019 and the connection was restored on the same day. Thereafter on hearing the question of maintainability the commission allowed the complainant to withdraw the complaint with liberty to file the complaint before the proper Forum having jurisdiction. Hence complainant filed this complaint before this Forum seeking relief. The prayer of the complainant is to restore the mobile phone connection 9847016610 which is disconnected illegally and revise the bill dated 05/12/2018 for Rs.2,34,244.23/- issued by the opposite parties and issue the bill for the actual usage excluding the exorbitant data charges. The complainant further prayed to refund Rs.66,643/- paid as per the interim order of the district forum Kozhikode to restore the mobile connection along with compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and cost of Rs.25,000/-
9. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and on receipt of notice the opposite party entered appendance and filed version denying all the allegations and claims contained in the complaint. The opposite party submitted the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on the true facts and circumstances of the matter. The opposite party submitted the complainant is not a consumer as per Consumer Protection Act 1986 and there is no consumer dispute warranting adjudication before the Forum. It is alleged the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands but he suppressed the true, correct and material facts and as set out untrue, untenable, unsustainable, and misleading allegations and claims which was well disentitled the complainant form claim or getting any relief under the Act.
10. The opposite party submitted the disputed mobile number 9847016610 is in the name of the complainant has been used by him widely as a “hospital – work – phone number”, the nature of which is a commercial purpose ultimately and so the complainant does not have right to approach this, Forum. As per the section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Act, the consumer does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. Section 2(1)(d)(ii) clearly laydown that person who hires or avails of the services for a consideration for any commercial purposes shall not qualify as a consumer. Hence the opposite party raised the issue of maintainability.
11. The opposite party submitted that they are India’s leading telecom service provider and provides pan India voice and data services across 2G, 3G, and 4G plat forms. With the large spectrum Portfolio to support the growing demand for data and voice and the opposite party is committed to deliver delightful customer experiences and contribute towards creating a truly “digital India “by enabling millions of citizens to connect and build a better tomorrow. They are developing infrastructure to introduce newer and smarter technologies, making both retail and enterprises customer future ready with innovative offerings, conveniently accessible through an eco-system of digital channels as well as extensive on ground presence. The opposite parties provide normal acceptable standard of service to the complete satisfaction of all the subscriber including the complainant and the terms and conditions of the subscriptions contemplated under various mediums including the opposite party’s website agreed by the complainant binding on the complainant.
12. The opposite party submitted that the complainant was holding a mobile connection bearing No. 9847016610 of the opposite party. Admittedly the complainant frequently travels abroad and hence it is amply clear that he is aware of applicable international mobile tariff and charges applicable in this regard and the consequences of not activating the same. It is submitted that the usage by the complainant international roaming generates the opposite party with charges to the foreign operator who ultimately provides the services based on various parameter as applicable to different countries international al roaming charges. The normal usages by the international roaming customers attract international roaming charges at standard rates which the customer is liable to pay. To get the subsidized charging, the customers need to apply for special packages for each country provided under various packs in their period of stay in a foreign country. It is ultimately the duty of the customer to check whether the roaming pack he is going to activate covers the country he intent to visit. Since there are widely known to international roaming customers, they confirm the billing particulars before using the services or while using the services in foreign countries and in roaming charge’s applicable locations outside India.
13. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had sought for international roaming pack of Rs.2,999/- applicable for UAE and other countries listed in the tariff plan and voucher available at the time of travel by the complainant. It is submitted that the complainant being a frequent traveler is aware regarding the territorial specifications allotted to international roaming packs. There for the complainant had knowing the applied international roaming facility, which is applicable to UAE and it is highly unbelievable that he was not aware of the countries in which they said would not apply. Moreover, the tariff brochure and the advertisement while choosing the international pack clearly show the list of countries which fall within the said pack. Hence it is submitted that it was solely due to gross over sight, carelessness, and negligence on the part of the complainant for he had applied for international roaming pack which is applicable to UAE and the country is listed here with omitting to check Mauritius, the county he intended to visit falls under the roaming pack or not. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that they cannot be held liable for charging on standard rate in case the international roaming services are used by the customer without applying for valid international pack covering the respective country to which the customer proposes for his travelling.
15. The complainant admitted in the complaint itself that his first stop for travel was Dubai and thereafter he went to Mauritius. Further admitted that he had activated the international roaming pack for Rs.2,999/- on 09/11/2018 through his agent while he was in Dubai. After activation of the same upon usage of mobile data no charges were levied on him. It is clear from the invoice that after activation of roaming pack the charges have been levied under the package tariff. However, there was usage of data around 7 am on the same day itself for which the standard rate has applied. Therefore, it is amply clear that the opposite party has not caused any deficiency in service and had offered the promised services for the international roaming pack that he had applied for. However, since the said pack does not cover the country Mauritius as evident from the brochure the complainant is bound to pay at the standard rates or his usage of international roaming service at the country of Mauritius. The invoice bearing No. KLPO0007624324 dated 05/11/2018 has been issued on the complainant. Later on account of the huge outstanding bill the complainant was called upon to pay the due amount or nonpayment of a total outstanding of Rs.2,34,244/- and to contain further financial loss to the opposite party, the service connection of the complainant had been disconnected. Thereafter as per the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Kozhikode in IA 252/2019 in C.C.No.194/2019, the opposite party temporarily restored the connection upon payment of ¼ th bill amount i.e Rs.66,654/-. It is further submitted that now the country Mauritius is covered under the opposite parties international roaming packs. The true facts and circumstances of the matter is being above stated, all the allegations and claims contrary to the same contained in the complaint are not proper, correct, or sustainable and lacking in truth and bonafides, besides being baseless erroneous and ill motivated. The allegation in paragraph 2 that he used to ask the opposite party to activate roaming packs for respective countries and that he asked the opposite party to activate roaming pack before leaving India is not true, proper, or correct hence denied. It is reiterated that the complainant activated the roaming pack while he was in UAE through an agent.
16. The opposite party specifically denied that the complainant returned to India on 14/11/2018 from Mauritius and that he used data less than 200Mb. It is admitted that the international roaming pack availed by the complainant does not cover Mauritius and the same was clearly mentioned in the brochure and the website of the opposite party. The opposite party denied that the charges levied in the bill dated 05/12/2018 does not tally with the usage provided as per roaming pack activated is not proper, correct, or sustainable. the opposite party submitted that the allegation regarding Rs.2,999/- also include in the head as other credits and charges, the opposite party provided the service of the same under the aforementioned roaming pack which can be clearly seen from the invoice itself. Hence the submission is that the charges levied upon the complainant is strictly in true with the mandates of law and TRAI regulations and allegations raised by the complainant is legally un sustainable.
17. The opposite party denied the allegations that the bill is against the scheme provided by the opposite party and so not liable to pay the bill, the opposite party should not have charged such huge amount as roaming charges when he has activated the roaming pack before going Mauritius that the opposite party initially agreed to settle the bill after collecting the charges excluding the roaming charges Rs.1,93,761/- and its corresponding central and state GST, that the opposite party later refused to revise the bill, that the opposite party finally told that Rs.60,000/- can be deducted and that the complainant is liable to pay only the balance amount Rs.4,853/-, towards the bill are not proper correct or sustainable hence denied . The statement that the complainant is willing to pay the remaining amount excluding the data charges and GST is highly illegal and unwarranted. The complainant is usually required to pay the entire bill amount as the invoice has been issued strictly as per the procedures prescribed under law and that the complainant cannot dodge from his liability caused solely due to his negligence and over sight.
18. The opposite party denied the averments in the complaint that the complainant is not liable to pay the bill legally that by disconnecting the 19-year-old mobile connection the opposite party had given little value to one of their valuable premium customer, that the disconnection has caused much mental agony to the complainant, the opposite party acted illegally and committed gross deficiency in their service, that the attempt of the opposite party is to exploit a consumer unscrupulously, that the bill does not explain what is the basis for such a huge bill and what is the tariff for coming such enormous amount for a very little usage. The act of opposite party amounts to serious deficiency in service envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act and that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss, hardships and mental agony sustained to him due to the illegal disconnection of the mobile service etc. It is also denied that the complainant could not make many important calls and the complainant is forced to cancel many appointments, programs, meetings etc since they are not known to the opposite party.
19. The opposite party denied that the opposite party failed to send information through USG or SMS regarding data usage by virtue of regulation 10 A of the telecom consumer protection (8th Amendment) is misinterpreted, misplace, and misconstrued which will also not be applicable to the situation in this complaint. It is submitted the alert regarding usage can only be sent out to IR customer on receipt of call data records (CDR) from the international roaming partner/ foregoing operator which is a time-consuming process. Charges may be further delay if the external carrier is delay in advising the opposite party of roaming activity. As per the processes set forth with the GSMA and international roaming partner can send CDRS within 30 days after the usage event. There can also be event that international roaming partner sent CDR’s after the customers billing cycle date. In all such cases the opposite party may not be able to send alarms to its IR customers for high usage and / or the customer uses services beyond the credit limit assigned in such cases the customer may be billed for international roaming usage in the current of subsequent bill cycles. In all cases the customer herein unconditionally agreed. Hence bound to make the timely full payment of bills for the usage of the services. It is pertinent to point out that the industry leading government telecom service provider BSNL is also following the same procedure. Thus, the opposite party always followed each mandate of law and TRAI regulations in this regard
20. The opposite party denied the averments that the exorbitant bill issued by the opposite party not according to the actual usage and data roaming pack amounts deficiency in service and which is to be dealt with the provisions of consumer protection act 1986 that the disconnection of mobile phone for nonpayment of bill also comes with in the purview of act, that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for mental agony, that untold miseries and sufferings caused etc.
21. The opposite party submitted that they cannot be thrusted with the liability on account of the negligence on the part of his customers despite openly providing all necessary information regarding the tariff plans and pack. It is also submitted that the bill has been issued by the opposite party strictly in compliance with the applicable laws and TRAI regulations. It is further submitted that as evident from the brochure, the country of Mauritius is not covered within the specified international roaming pack activated by the complainant and hence, for the usage and benefits availed by the complainant while in Mauritius as seen from the bill issued by the opposite party, he has been charged at standard rates at mandated under law. As per the TRAI guidelines the opposite party is entitled to disconnect the services upon non-payment of the bill. The opposite party submitted that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complainant cannot be expected same that his service connection could not have been disconnected despite making a total outstanding of Rs.2,34,244/-.
22. The opposite party submitted that the complainant is trying to suppress the fact that he had only availed for international roaming facility for UAE and other applicable countries and had not applied for a specific international pack for Mauritius. The statement of the complainant reveals that he is frequent traveler and so is highly plausible that he is aware about the requirement to avail for international roaming pack offered by the opposite party for the country to which he proposes to or is travelling so as to get the benefit of reduced tariff charges. Instead, the act of merely claiming for international roaming facility without looking in to the brochure provided by the opposite party and without verifying the tariff details, which is expressly inform to him through advertisements and others, amplifies the negligence on the part of the complainant. The real prayer for restoration of the connection without payment of the bill due is obnoxious and illegal in the eyes of law.
23. The opposite party submitted that there is no cause of action, the relief prayed for are not allowable. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of the opposite party and no loss or injury or hardship has been caused to the complainant on account of the opposite party and so the opposite party is not liable or responsible to pay any compensation. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of this complaint with compensatory cost to the opposite party.
24. The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A5. The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3. Ext. A1 is the paper copy of the roaming pack details downloaded from internet. Ext. A2 is the bill dated 05/12/2018 for Rs.234244.23. /- issued by the opposite parties. Ext. A3 is copy of the order dated 06/07/2019 in IA 252/2019 of District Forum Kozhikode. Ext.A4 is copy of cash receipt dated 08/07/2019 for Rs.66,643/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A5 is copy of the order dated 12/12/2019 of the District Forum Kozhikode in C.C.No.194/2019. Ext. B1 is copy of the international roaming pack brochure dated 05/11/2018. Ext. B2 is copy of invoice No. KLP00007624324 dated 05/12/2018. Ext. B3 is details of international roaming services BSNL.
25. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit, and documents.
The following points arise for consideration-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
26. Point No.1
The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer and so the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission. The submission of the opposite party is that the disputed mobile number 9847016610 in the name of the complainant has been used by him widely as a “hospital – work – phone number “, the nature of which is a commercial purpose ultimately. Since the mobile number is used for commercial purpose, the complainant does not have the right to approach the Commission as per Consumer Protection Act. On the other hand the complainant submitted that he is the subscriber of mobile number since 19 years and he is being the MD of a hospital the said mobile service connection is very important and essential not only for his personal purpose but also for the general public. Many of the poor patients are contacting the complainant through this number seeking help for their treatment. It is also submitted that this number is popular among his family, friends, doctors, other hospital staff and many of his associates. He submitted that the mobile service is exclusively used for his personal contact and not a corporate or commercial connection. There are many other phone connections in the hospital as well as in other firms. So, from the averments of the complainant that the mobile connection was not used exclusively for commercial purpose as contended by the opposite party. The complainant is entitled to use the connection for his personal purpose and as part of commercial purpose. That doesn’t means the mobile phone was used for commercial purpose as defined under Consumer Protection Act and so there is no merit in the contention of the opposite party and we find that the complaint Is maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission .
27. Point No.2 and 3
The complainant is the subscriber of the mobile number 9874016610 for the last 19 years which is admitted by the opposite party. It is also evident that the complainant used to go abroad with this mobile connection. The complainant submits that whenever he intends to visit other countries, before leaving India he will ask the service provider to activate the roaming packs of the country, he visits. So, the complainant can use the phone and data in the roaming tariff. The complainant visited Mauritius from November 9 to 14, 2018. The complainant flew to Mauritius via Dubai on 9th November 2018. Before leaving India as usual he asked the service provider / opposite party to activate roaming pack. The complainant specifically states that one Mr. Hakeem belongs to the Perinthalmanna office activated the roaming pack with the following details.
I - Roam for 7 days
Data 2 GB
Calls: 200 minutes outgoing, unlimited incoming
SMS: 25 SMS out going, unlimited incoming
the rate of this package was Rs.2999/-.
28. Thereafter with the roaming pack the complainant left India to Mauritius Via Dubai. The complainant used the data less than 200MB from the Mauritius. The complainant returns after 5 days on 14th November 2018. But after that the complainant was served an invoice No. KL P00007624324 dated 05/12/2018 claiming Rs.2,34,244.23/-. The complainant submit that the bill covered 193761/- rupees as roaming charges. The invoice reveals that the usage of the complainant is not within the purviews of the roaming pack activated.
29. The complainant submits that after TRAI amendment of the telecom consumer protection (eighth Amendment), regulations in August 2015, as per 10 A of the regulation every service provider shall through SMS or USSD, unstructured supplementary service data) to all consumers of the cellular mobile telephone service on whose mobile phone data services are activated, after 10 MB of used by consumer, the quantum of data used during a session. At no point of time the complainant received such an information in his mobile nor did the opposite parties sent such messages.
30. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant had sought for international roaming pack of Rs.2,999/- applicable for UAE and other countries listed in tariff plan and brochures available at the time of travel by the complainant. The complainant herein knowingly applied for international roaming facility which is applicable to UAE and it is highly unbelievable that he was not aware of the countries in which the said pack would not apply. The opposite party submitted that the tariff brochure and the advertisements while choosing the international pack clearly shows the list of countries which fall within the said pack. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that solely due to the gross over sight, carelessness, and negligence on the part of the complainant that he had applied for international roaming pack which is applicable to UAE and the countries listed there with omitting to check whether Mauritius, the country he intended to visit falls under the roaming pack or not. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that they cannot be liable for charging on standard on rate in case the international roaming services are used by the customer without applying or a valid international pack covering the respective country to which the customer proposes to for his travelling. The opposite party produced Ext. B1 document to show that the roaming facility available under the opposite party. As per Ext. B1 there are so many countries are enlisted therein but does not reveal the name of the country Mauritius. On the other hand, the complainant produced Ext. A1 the print out from the internet regarding international roaming provided by the opposite party. The said documents disclose the name of the country Mauritius. The opposite party admitted that they are issuing the tariff brochure and the advertisements regarding the international pack reveling the list of countries which fall within the said pack. The case of the complainant is that he availed roaming package of Rs.2999/- which is valid for 7 days and which is available Mauritius also. The complainant submitted the list of documents and the relevant documents along with complaint. But the opposite party did not challenge the veracity of Ext. A1 document. The commission do not find any reason to discard the averments in Ext. A1 which reveals the name of the country Mauritius. If that being the fact brought out by the parties in the evidence, we find that there is substance in the allegation of the complaint. The complainant activated the roaming package of Rs.2,999/- which is valid for 7 days and within the stipulated period he covered his foreign trip. So, there is no reason to issue an invoice Ext. A2 to the complainant demanding to pay Rs.2,34,244.23/- rupees.
31. The complainant further contended in the complaint that as per the TRAI regulations every service provider shall inform through SMS or USD to all consumer of the cellular telephonic mobile service on whose mobile phone data service were activated , after 10 ,MB of use by the consumer, the quantum of data used during session. The complainant alleges that at any point of time the complainant received such an information in his mobile nor did the opposite parties sent such messages. The opposite party submitted that the allegation of the complainant is not applicable to the situation herein. Alert regarding usage can only be sent out to IR customer on receipt of call data records from the international roaming partner / foreign operator which is a time-consuming process. Charges may further delay if the external carrier is delayed in advising the opposite party of roaming activity. As per the processes set forth by the GSMA, an international roaming partner can send CDRS within 30 days after the usage event. There can also be events that international roaming partner sent CDRS after the customers billing cycle. In all such cases the opposite party may not be able to send alarms to his IR customer for high usage and / or the customer uses services beyond the credit limit assigned. In such cases the customer may billed for international roaming usage in the current or subsequent bill cycle. The submission of the opposite party is that they followed each mandate of law and TRAI regulations in this regard.
32. The complainant submitted that it is the duty of the opposite party, every service provider shall ensure that the international mobile roaming service is inactive by default for all consumers and shall be activated only on the request of a consumer and once activated, it may be deactivated at any time on the request of consumer. It is further submitted that the case of existing consumer is, specific choice of every consumer to continue with or to discontinue the activated international mobile roaming service, if applicable, may be obtained through SMS, email, or mobile application, if available within 30 days from the date of publication of these regulations in the official gazette. The complainant further submitted that after the telecom consumers protection (Eleventh amendment) regulations, 2020, it was specially mentioned the responsibility of the service provider on activation of international mobile roaming service. Every service provider shall immediately on activation of international mobile roaming service, provide to the consumer, through SMS, email and mobile application if available the following information i.e (I ) the fact of activation of international mobile roaming service and (ii) the (applicable tariff ) if the for the activation of international roaming service (one time charges as well as recurring charges as may be applicable ). It is the specific that the opposite party did not inform in the mobile of the complainant about the quantum of data used by the complainant. The opposite party admit that they could not intimate the complainant about the data details for various reasons as envisaged in the version and affidavit of the opposite party. Hence it is an admitted fact that the opposite party failed to provide proper intimation regarding the use of data by the complainant. The complainant being a long standing consumer of the opposite party, that too for 19 years was not provided due service from the opposite party but served an exorbitant bill which is not at all supported with legal sanctity. Hence this Commission here by set aside the bill issued by the opposite party which is produced by the complainant as Ext. A1.
33. The complainant was in use of the mobile connection for long years and there were so many contacts with the mobile connection. Due to the defective service and thereby disconnection of the mobile connection caused much inconvenience and hardships to the complainant. Hence the opposite party is liable to pay reasonable amount as compensation to the complainant and we fix the same as Rs.50,000/. The complainant deposited ¼ the amount before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Calicut as part of interlocutory application to reinstate connection of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to refund the deposited amount. We also consider Rs.10000/- as cost of the proceedings.
34. In the light of above fact and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows: -
1) Exhibit A2, the bill dated 05/12/2018, issued by the opposite party to the complainant demanding to pay Rs.2,34,244/- (Rupees two lakh thirty four thousand two hundred and forty four only) is hereby set-aside.
2) The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.66,643/- (Rupees sixty-six thousand six hundred and forty-three only) to the complainant which is received by the opposite party on 08/07/2019 from the complainant.
3) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fift-y thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship.
4) The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. Rs10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt copy of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the above said entire amount of rupees 126643/- from the date of order to till date of payment.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2023.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1: Paper copy of the roaming pack details downloaded from internet.
Ext.A2: Bill dated 05/12/2018 for Rs.234244.23./- issued by the opposite parties.
Ext A3: Copy of the order dated 06/07/2019 in IA 252/2019 of District Forum
Kozhikode.
Ext A4: Copy of cash receipt dated 08/07/2019 for Rs.66,643/- issued by the opposite
party to the complainant.
Ext A5: Copy of the order dated 12/12/2019 of the District Forum Kozhikode in
C.C.No.194/2019.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of the international roaming pack brochure dated 05/11/2018.
Ext.B2: Copy of invoice No.KLP00007624324 dated 05/12/2018.
Ext.B3: Details of international roaming services BSNL.
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
