This CC is coming before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri B. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for the complainant; and of Sri G. Kanaka Lingeswar Rao, Advocate, Hyderabad for opposite party; Upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.        The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant is a subscriber of Cellular Mobile network of opposite party bearing Mobile No.8886677810 vide account No.1.90260040.  The complainant submitted that, she has been making payments as per the bills received from the opposite party, due to the utter dismay of the complainant though she had not made any ISD calls the opposite party started issuing bills claiming ISD charges, which impact the complainant never made any ISD calls to anybody.  The complainant further submitted that, she made written correspondence with opposite party on 21-12-2014 and on 29-12-2014 stating that she never made any ISD calls, inspite of receiving protest representations from the complainant from time to time, the opposite party did not choose to rectify the mistake crept in its records and has been updating the due in future bills.  The complainant further submitted that having not satisfied with the representations made by the complainant and she happened to be pregnant, the staff of the opposite party time and again disturbed the complainant insisting for payment of the alleged ISD call charges, which she is not able to pay, because of the disturbance of the opposite party, the complainant has made to suffer a lot  and she suffered lot of stress and mental agony which cannot be explained in terms and words and which resulted the complainant to undergo major surgery.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite party on 27-02-2015 got issued a demand notice calling upon the complainant to make payment of Rs.3,530/- i.e., the alleged outstanding due amount which in fact not liable to pay by the complainant under a threat of legal action.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite party without proper check off its day to day business activity and records has been insisting upon the complainant to make payment of the alleged outstanding due of Rs.3,530/- under the guise of alleged ISD calls which the complainant never made.  The complainant further submitted that inspite of repeated representations, the opposite party did not concern the same and because of the lacunae on the part of the opposite party, the complainant not only made to suffer mentally, but also suffered lot of pain, suffering and mental agony, apart from that the complainant had to face lot of ill health problems because of the persisted demands and disturbance made to the complainant while she was in pregnancy and it is crystal clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in rendering services, for which the complainant approached the Forum.   

3.       On behalf of the complainant the following documents were marked as Exhibits A1 to A3.

Ex.A-1:- Photocopy of bill issued by opposite party (Nos. 3).

Ex.A-2:- Photocopy of representation made by the complainant to the

             opposite party. (Nos. 2).

Ex.A-3:- Demand Notice dt. 27-02-2015 issued by the opposite party   

             for an amount of Rs.3,530/-.

4.       On receipt of the notice, the opposite party appeared through their counsel and filed written version.  In their written version opposite party denied entire allegations made by the complainant against them.   The opposite party further submitted that the name of the opposite party described in the cause title as well as in the paragraph No.2 are incorrect and there is no company called Vodafone South India Limited in Vodafone group,  Vodafone South Limited is the company which provides services to the complainant.  The opposite party further submitted that the opposite parties name has mentioned in the complaint is a non-existing one, and the description of the opposite party therefore is an improper one and on the ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party further submitted that any aspect of dealing the call data records of any mobile number, by virtue of terms and conditions of the unified access license entered with the Government of India should be dealt before the appropriate courts having jurisdiction over the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and other laws relating to the specific criminal offences but not under any other circumstances and therefore, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The opposite party further submitted that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matter as the alleged issues in dispute are more of contractual obligations arising out of an agreement for services and are mostly triable under appropriate trial proceedings and not subject to the summary proceedings.  The opposite party denied that the customer had submitted the letters dt. 21-12-2014 and 29-12-2014 stating the issue of the ISD calls billing and requesting a revised bill.  The opposite party further submitted that since the billing is electronically generated as per the call details and usage from the switch centre with absolutely no human intervention, thus, there arises no question of rectification/revision of the bill and the complainant only for illegal and wrongful monetary gains has been pursuing the present complaint by suppressing the true facts and in view of the above facts and circumstances prayed to dismiss the complaint.   

5.       On behalf of the opposite party the following documents have been filed and marked as Exhibits B1 to B.

Ex.B-1:-Attested Copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon change of name.

Ex.B-2:- Attested Copy of Power of Attorney.

Ex.B-3:- Attested Copy of Postpaid Customer Application Form.

Ex.B-4:- Attested Copy of Screenshot of the computer system showing the outstanding from the complainant.

          Ex.B-5:- Attested copy of Extract of the License Agreement entered

    with Government of India.

6.       Examination-in-Chief Affidavit and Written Arguments of opposite party filed.

7.       Heard Oral Arguments.

8.       Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the points that arose for consideration are,

Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?

Point No:-

In this case the complainant is a subscriber of Cellular Mobile network of opposite party bearing Mobile No.8886677810 vide account No.1.90260040.  According to the complainant she has been making payments as per the bills received from the opposite party, due to the utter dismay of the complainant though she had not made any ISD calls the opposite party started issuing bills claiming ISD charges, which impact the complainant never made any ISD calls to anybody.  According to the complainant, she made written correspondence with opposite party on 21-12-2014 and on 21-09-2014 stating that she never made any ISD calls, inspite of receiving protest representations from the complainant from time to time, the opposite party did not choose to rectify the mistake crept in its records and has been updating the due in future bills.  According to the complainant on 27-02-2015 the opposite party got issued a demand notice calling upon the complainant to make payment of Rs.3,530/- i.e., the alleged outstanding due amount which in fact not liable to pay by the complainant under a threat of legal action and the opposite party without proper check off its day to day business activity and records has been insisting upon the complainant to make payment of the alleged outstanding due of Rs.3,530/- under the guise of alleged ISD calls which the complainant never made.  According to the complainant inspite of repeated representations, the opposite party did not concern the representations made by the complainant and it is crystal clear that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in rendering services, for which the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.     

As per the Examination in Chief Affidavit filed by the opposite party, the complainant had subscribed for post paid mobile services of opposite party cellular mobile network by accepting the terms and conditions and had subscribed for tariff plan NC_MU_MV_SBI_99 on 01-08-2013, which is a CUG plan for State Bank of India, with ISD facility.  And the bills are generated electronically and there is no human intervention and the billing software deployed by the opposite party is by the Government of India (Telecom Engineering Commission TEC) and fully compliant with information security audits conducted under ISO protocols as well as the audit conducted by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) from time  to time.  According to the opposite party if at all there is a grievance relating to the billing, the same should be complained to the TRAI which is the regulatory body and the Forum has no jurisdiction to summon the call Data Records and to try the evidences, the crux of the complaint is not traible under summary proceedings, any aspect relating to dealing with the call data records (CDRs) of any mobile, as per the terms and conditions of the “Unified Access Service License” entered into with the Government of India, should be dealt with before the appropriate courts having jurisdiction over the Indian Telegraph Act 1885 and other laws relating to the specific criminal offences and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 

            From the documents and material available on record, we observed that on 22-12-2014 and on 29-12-2014 (Exhibit A-2) the complainant submitted representation to the opposite party and requested for statement of ISD calls for the billing and also requested for last six months detailed statement and the same was furnished by the opposite party which is marked as Exhibit A-1.  In Ramesh Kumar Rohilla Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd., III (2013) CPJ 135 (NC) the Hon’ble National Commission observed that there is special remedy provided in Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills.  In the present case, the case of the complainant is that the opposite parties issued bills claiming ISD charges and issued demand notice for Rs.3,530/- is barred as per the decision of the Apex Court, therefore, the complainant is hereby directed to approach appropriate authority under sec.7B of the Telegraph Act.

In the result, the complaint is disposed of with a direction to the complainant to approach appropriate authority under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act on her grievance.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 2^nd day of September, 2016.

PRESIDENT             MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM

KHAMMAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                           -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                     For Opposite party:-   

FAC President               Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam