DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 63/2015
Date of Institution : 13.04.2015
Date of Decision : 18.08.2015
Krishan Gopal s/o Pyara Lal resident of H. No. B-XI-1215, St. No. 5-B, Gobind Colony, Near Sukhjit Patwari House, Barnala, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. Vodafone South Ltd., C-131, Industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali-160071 through its Managing Director.
2. VFMS NESH Telecom, K.C. Road, Near Dr. Vijay, Barnala through its prop/partner.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. RK Singla counsel for the complainant
Sh. KR Goel counsel for the opposite party No. 1
Opposite party No. 2 exparte
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(MS. VANDANA SIDHU MEMBER ):
1. This complaint No. 63/15 filed by complainant. As per complaint the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties for his Vodafone mobile no. 9646100502 and has deposited all the bills raised by the opposite parties regularly. On 21.2.2015 he received a bill for the period from 21.01.2015 to 20.02.2015 for a sum of Rs. 1448.96 including Rs. 1108.72 for using 0.26 GB Internet Service service tax. The complainant lodged his complaint on 24.2.2015 to the opposite party no. 1 through e-mail that they have wrongly raised the demand of Rs. 1108.72 as shown charges for data usage of 0.26 GB on a very high rate. The opposite party no.1 instead of correcting the bill sent a bill a detail vide their email dated 28.2.2015 alleging that they charged the amount on KB basis. The complainant again approached the opposite party no.1 and requested him to withdraw his illegal demand and the opposite party no. 1 send the above stated bills on the usage of GB basis but detail is given alleging that they are charging the bills on KB basis. It is pertinent to mention here that all the schemes of the opposite parties and all other service providers are always on GB basis. The disputed bill charged on KB basis. The said bill deposited by the complainant under protest with the opposite party no. 2 i.e. branch office of the opposite party no. 1 as collection centre on 5.3.2015. Complainant paid Rs 1450 under protest. And as per complaint the above said act of the opposite parties is unfair and wrong act of the opposite parties. Further the complainant submits in his complaint that the act of opposite parties is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. The complainant visited the office of the opposite parties with necessary information and documents many times. Hence this complaint .
Jurisdiction : That the complainant paid the bill amount at Barnala, received bill and reply at Barnala. So, thats why this court has jurisdiction.
Relief claimed: 1. the complainant prayed for following relief
1) that the directions may be issued to refund the amount of Rs. 1108.72 service tax alongwith interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 5.3.2015 till realization.
2) that Rs. 5500/- as litigation expenses, Rs. 50,000/- as mental agony and harassment.
2. Upon notice to the opposite party no. 1 filed reply and opposite party no. 2 exparte. Legal objection taken interalia that complainant failed to disclose the cause of action regarding which the complaint is relating deficiency in service. The bare perusal of the complaint shows that the complaint has failed to disclose any cause of action as regards the deficiency in service has been alleged against the opposite party. In the present case the subscriber of the telephone has failed to lodge any grievance with the answering opposite party in the absence of the same the present complaint is not maintainable. And as per terms and conditions of the agreement form, the parties to the agreement i.e. the complainant and the opposite parties has agreed that in case of any dispute the jurisdiction would vests with the courts at Delhi and not at Barnala. The terms and conditions mentioned in the Customer Application Form (CAF) may be referred to in relation to the jurisdiction clause. As per preliminary objections the complainant has been rightly charged for the usage of internet services and in accordance with the usage the answering opposite parties had raised the computerized bill/invoices which were duly provided to the complainant therefore, at this stage the complainant cannot turned around and state that no internet usage has been availed by him. This fact can be corroborated through the usage of the internet services on his mobile handset and it is also depicted in the bills generated to the complainant. At this stage he cannot turn around and state the answering opposite parties was deficient in services. On merits it is vehemently denied that the complainant is regularly making the payment of the outstanding amount towards the bills raised by the answering opposite party. Proof in respect of it should bring on record by complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the bill to the tune of Rs. 1448.96 which includes Rs. 1108.72 is for using data of 273.683136 MB data only which is equivalent to 0.26 GB date as alleged by the complainant. And opposite party has raised the said bill in accordance with the usage of mobile as well as internet services availed by the complainant therefore at this stage the complainant cannot turn around and state that no such internet usage was made by the complainant. As per merits the complainant has wrongly stated usage of internet services of 0.26 GB rather the complainant had availed the 270.683136 MB Data against which the answering opposite party had correctly issued the bills/invoice. As per the rate 4 paise per 10 KB and accordingly has been charged a sum of rupees 1108.72 vide invoice dated 21.2.2015. The rate 4 paise per 10 KB and accordingly has been charged a sum of rupees 1108.72 vide invoice dated 21.2.2015. The opposite party sent reply of the Email made by the complainant.
3. In support of his evidence complainant tender Ex.C-1 i.e. affidavit of Krishan Gopal, Ex. C-2 Copy of bills, Ex. C-3 Copy of call details as, Ex. C-4 copy of E mail letter, Ex. C-5, C-6 and C-7 and Ex. C-8 copy of courier receipts, Ex.C-9 brochure regarding internet plans and close the evidence.
4. To rebut the evidence of complainant opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 affidavit of Ashutosh Kalia, Ex.OP-1/2 Copy of customer agreement Form, Ex.OP-1/3 copy of bill and close the evidence.
5. After perusing the entire record and evidence by both parties the above stated complaint is dismissed for these reasons that as per Ex.C-2 and Ex.OP-1/3 i.e. bill on the name of complainant of dated 11.3.2015 issued by opposite party no.1 under title summary of charges for this bill period total amount is 1449.39. And the part of the bill shows complainant took talk plan: Corp 100 plan. Monthly charges of this plan is 100 Rs and rent for this plan is monthly. So, duration time is 01.01.2015 to 31.01.2015. Data conversion of this plan is 1 MB 1.024 KB, 1 GB 1.024 MB/1.048.576 KB. Usage charges is as per bill Local to Vodafone duration net charges is 19.00, Local to others net charges is 62.23, VF Mobile connect i.e. usage (in KB) 277180, usage (in GB) 0.26 net charges 1108.72. So, as per Ex.C-5 which is reply of E-mail it is elaborated in regard of alleged bill clarification that complainant used GRPS core services and consumed 0.26 MB data within bill cycle so complainant has been charged as per 4p/10 Kb. In respect of Ex.OP-1/2 i.e. Agreement between complainant and opposite parties, validity of this agreement is that column (a) Both parties are bound by this agreement. During the time of argument complainant filed one application in regard of qurries about charging by the opposite party on KB basis when opposite party issued bill on GB basis and about violation of opposite party in regard of their own schemes.
6. This Forum considered that opposite party correctly charged alleged amount from the complainant because as per Ex.C2/OP-1/3 KB is the part of MB and MB becomes part of GB. So here is in 1 GB 1,048,576 KB. Complainant bought plan as per Ex.OP-1/3 of Rs.100/- and used 277180 KB in 0.26 GB. So, here is excess usage or consumption of plan by complainant. 0.26 GB is minor part of 1 GB. We find no merit in this complaint thats why above stated complaint is dismissed and no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
18th Day of August 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandana Sidhu)
Member
