BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.638 of 2015

                                 Date of institution:          02.12.2015

                                              Date of Decision:            14.09.2016

Bhinder Singh son of Gurnam Singh resident of village Minda Majra, P.O. Gige Majra, Tehsil and District Mohali.

                                               ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Vodafone South Limited, C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali through its authorised representative.

        Regd. Office: Plot No.C-48, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi.

                                                                   ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

                Shri A.P.S. Rajput, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Ms. Parminder Kaur, counsel for the OP.

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member)

ORDER

                The complainant filed the present complaint pleading that in the year 2010 he had obtained Post paid Vodafone connection bearing No.96460-02663 on his name at a monthly rental of Rs.100/- which he was using in his Nokia 1209 Model Mobile Phone. The maximum bill of the complainant was from Rs.120/- to Rs.150/- per month till September, 2015.  On 14.10.2015 the outgoing service of the connection of the complainant was barred, however, incoming service was available. On enquiry by the complainant from Vodafone Store at Phase 3B-2, Mohali, the complainant was told that he has exceeded the monthly limit of Rs.2,000/- as the phone has been used for international calling and a bill of Rs.3708/- has been generated as per usage.  However, no call or message was given by the OP regarding reaching of monthly limit of Rs.2,000/- before barring the outgoing services of the connection of the complainant.  It was informed by the aforesaid Store of the OP that on 20.10.2015 request for international roaming was made by the complainant. However, the complainant has pleaded that none of his relative or any friend is residing abroad, so there was no need for him to make international call from his number.  The excess bill has been generated by the OP just to make profit and to harass the complainant.  On 21.10.2015 his outgoing call services were unbarred and international call charges for one minute were charged.  The complainant on 23.10.2015 requested for disconnection of his above number and also asked for the bill details which were provided on 05.11.2015.  On 03.11.2015 an amount of Rs.750/- was paid automatically without the knowledge of the complainant.  The complainant reported the matter to the Police Station Phase- 8B Industrial Area, Mohali through SSP, Mohali vide complaint dated 05.11.2015. The complainant has visited many times the office of the OP to solve the issue but the OP did not pay any heed to his requests.  The complainant has suffered huge financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment due to negligence and deficiency in service of the OP. So the OP is liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the sum of Rs.50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of complaint till realisation.

2.             After service of notice, the Opposite Party filed written version taking preliminary objections that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of want of jurisdiction as the complainant has got efficacious and alternate remedy provided under the various provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885;  if the jurisdiction of TRAI Act be invoked then the regulations called The Telecom Consumers Complaint Redressal Regulation, 2012 which is formulated as per Section 36 and 11 (1) of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, 1997 holds good in such type of special discords;  the complainant himself made ISD calls from his mobile number  and the amount of Rs.3753/- was levied against the ISD  Calls which was duly intimated to the complainant by bill dated 01.11.2015 that his usage was Rs.3723.50 till 31.10.2015. As the credit limit of his mobile connection was Rs.2,000/- the complainant need to make interim payment of Rs.4329.44. The complainant did not make payment of total bill amount of Rs.4329.44 including ISD calls of Rs.3723.56 for the period from 01.10.2015 to 31.10.2015 and due to non payment of bill the mobile connection was disconnected. The complainant was duly intimated that his bill has exceeded his credit limit and he was required to make immediate interim payment. No amount of Rs.750/- was paid automatically on 03.11.2015. The connection was disconnected as the complainant failed to clear his bill amount. 

                On merits, the OP has pleaded that the outgoing services of the complainant were barred on 14.10.2015 due to non payment of interim amount as his credit limit has exceeded.  The OP has duly intimated to the complainant about the exceeded credit limit.  ISD is the default service which is attached with main tariff plan and the complainant was rightly charged for ISD calling for 248.00 minutes. The OP has denied all the allegations made against it and lastly prayed for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6.

4.             Evidence of the Opposite Party consist of affidavit of Ashutosh Kalia, its Dy. General Manager Legal Ex.OP-1/1 and bill Ex.OP-1.

5.             We have heard the arguments and also gone through the file of the case.

6.             In the present complaint the main allegation of the complainant is that the O.P. has charged him for making an international call whereas he has never made any international call as none of his relative or friends are residing abroad and amount of excess bill was generated by the company just to make profit and harass the complainant. The O.P. denied that ISD facility was not used by the complainant as call details are not manually recorded at the office of the O.P.

                Now the main issue in question is whether the complainant/user made international call or not?

                This question cannot be decided in summary procedure as it involves complicated question of facts and law. Therefore, this forum is unable decide this issue as there is not enough evidence to decide the same especially without any proof provided by the complainant to prove the same. In the absence of any proof, this complaint alongwith sets is returned to the complainant to approach the appropriate court/authority to adjudicate upon the matter as the same cannot be decided by this Forum in summary procedure because it requires elaborate evidence to decide the controversial question whether complainant made international call or not.

              Complaint Returned.

                The arguments on the complaint were concluded on 01.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced.                           

September 14, 2016.                                                         

                                                        (A.P.S. Rajput)

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member