DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.



Complaint no.601 of 27.9.2007. Date of Order 5.3.2009.



Manjit Singh Sethi, 5319/1, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana.

….Complainant.

Versus



1- Spice Communication Ltd. C-105, Phase-VII, Indl. Area-Mohali-160055 through authorized signatory.

2- Spice Communication Limited, Zoom Hotel, near Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.

….Opposite parties.



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present: Sh. Manjit Singh Sethi Adv. complainant in person.

Sh. Govind Puri Adv. for opposite parties.



O R D E R



T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant obtained mobile connection no.98555-29722 from the opposite party. His grievance against the opposite party in this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is that they illegally, in the bills commencing from 7.6.2007 till filing of the complaint, started charging monthly rental for “Talk to me” facility. Thereafter, from bill of 7th August, 2007 onward, started charging for Local and STD sms. He had not requested for Local and STD sms, nor for “Talk to me” facility. Opposite party of their own started such illegal service, which they refused to withdraw despite his repeated requests and notice.

2- Opposite party in reply pleaded that complainant has no cause of action. Complaint deserves to be dismissed. Averred that he has not disclosed true facts. For “Talk to me” on his phone, rental was charged @ Rs.10/- per month from April onwards with consent of the TRAI. This fact was brought to the notice of complainant through SMS and through publications in the newspaper. Earlier, “Talk to me” facility was free of cost, but after order of TRAI, since April, they started charging Rs.10/- per month. Further claimed that local and STD sms pack was activated on 2.8.2007 at the end of the complainant through Interactive Voice Response. Hence, charges are legally claimed. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims. We have heard the complainant in person and ld. counsel for opposite party. Record stood perused.

4- Complaint was instituted on 27.9.2007. So, in view of the admission of the opposite party, it is manifest that since June, 2007 till September, 2007, complainant was charged Rs.10/- per month, for providing “Talk to me”, facility. Similarly, upto that date, from August, 2007, was charged for Local and STD sms.

5- It is case of opposite party that Rs.10/- per month since April, 2007, were charged under facility “Talk to me”, which earlier was provided free of cost and charges were levied with consent of TRAI. No such order of the TRAI is placed on the record. Neither any proof adduced that qua it, subscribers were informed through publication in the newspapers. So, it means grievance of the complainant is genuine that such charges were levied by opposite party, without his request and of their own or without his intimation. By levying such charges, certainly opposite party would be guilty of charging its customer for a facility, which he never demanded or sought. Such act on part of opposite party, certainly would amount to deficiency in service by resorting to unfair trade practice.

6- Similarly, there is no proof that STD and sms pack activated in August, 2007, was consequent upon to approval, consent or request of the complainant through Interactive Voice Response. No such proof by opposite party is adduced. Complainant vide communication Ex.C6 dated 16.6.2008, had brought such illegal aspects and charges by opposite party, to their notice. But they failed to respond about these charges. Such inaction of opposite party makes us to infer and conclude that they had levied charges of their own, without consent or approval of the complainant. It means the company resorted to unfair trade practice, to get enriched by duping its own customers. That duped amount may be less, but we can not lost sight that like the complainant, there may be hundreds and thousands others, who would have been duped, by such manner of the opposite party. In these circumstances, for deficiency in service and resorting to unfair trade practice, we allow this complaint and as a result, quash the demand of Rs.10/- each and local STD sms charges of Rs.25/- charged from bill of August, 2007 of the complainant, as reflected in bills Ex.C1 dated 7.8.2007, Ex.C2 dated 7.9.2007, Ex.C3 dated 7th June, 2007 and Ex.C5 dated 7th November, 2007. If such amount of these bills realized, same is ordered to be refunded to the applicant. For thrusting this litigation on complainant, opposite party ordered to pay compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-. Order be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of order. As requested by complainant in person, compensation amount is ordered to be deposited in consumer fund of the Fora. Copy of order be made available to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to record room.





Announced on 5.3.2009. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Complaint filed on 27.12.2008

and Decided on 06.03.2009

BEFORE THE UDUPI DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

AT UDUPI (KARNATAKA)

PRESENT: 1. Sri P.C.Gopal, President,
2. Smt.Mumtaz Begum, Member,
3. Sri Bekal Lakshmana Nayak, Member.

Consumer Complaint No.158/2008

Order dated 06.03.2009

Between:

Sri M.Shantharam Shetty,
Advocate,
1st Floor,
Anantha Kripa,
Maruthi Veethika,
Udupi – 576 101,
Udupi Taluk and District.
(Sri Santhosh Acharya, Advocate for the
Complainant)

………… Complainant

And

1. Managing Partner,
Spice,
Tulunadu Towers,
Opp: PPC Cross Road,
Udupi.

2. The Chairman and Managing Director,
Director,
Spice Communication Ltd.,
Regd. Office, 60-D,
Sainik Farms,
New Delhi – 110062.

3. The Manager
Spice Communication Ltd.,
# 75, Richmond Road,
Civil Station, Bangalore – 560025.

(Sri T.Vijay Kumar Shetty, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1,
Sri K.R.R.Adiga, Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3)

…….. Opposite Parties

WRITTEN BY SRI P.C.GOPAL, PRESIDENT.

ORDER

1. On 28.02.2009 the counsel for the Complainant filed an application u/s 151 of CPC praying to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to produce the documents as follows:
1) The application of the Complainant seeking pre paid telephone connection.
2) The application of the Complainant seeking alleged post paid telephone
connection and
(3) The entire calls details.

Contd………2

2. In the supporting affidavit Complainant has stated that Opposite Party has contended that due to the mistake they have sent demand notices dated 15.11.2007 to the Complainant and further they have stated the correct amount due from the Complainant to them is shown in the pre litigation application made to the District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore. To disprove the contents of the Opposite Party summoning the above document is absolutely necessary.

3. The Opposite Party filed the objection stating that the complainant has no prepaid mobile connection from Opposite Party No.3. Opposite Party has produced the copy of the application of the Complainant for post paid telephone connection and it is the contention of the Opposite Party No.3 that the call details pertaining to the Complainant’s post paid telephone connection is not available as the same is not maintained by the Opposite Party after the lapse of six months as per rule, thereby the Opposite Parties complied with the portion of the request of the Complainant.

4. The Opposite Party No.3 filed the objection denying the contents of the affidavit stated above and further stated that the documents sought to be produced are not at all relevant or required to adjudicate the matter in controversy. Complainant has not given any proper reason for the production of the document. The Complainant is not having any pre paid telephone connection from the Opposite Party No.3. Therefore, the question of producing the connected documents does not arise at all. The Opposite Party further states that the call details pertaining to the Complainant’s post paid telephone connection is not available as the same is not maintained by the Opposite Party after the lapse of six months as per rules. Hence the same cannot be produced. Opposite Party No.3 has produced the copy of the application of the Complainant seeking post paid telephone connection from the Opposite Party No.3. The I.A. datd 28..2.2009 is filed with oblique motive of harassing the Opposite Party No.3. Hence prayed to dismiss the same.

5. We have gone through the contents of the complaint and the version, we have also carefully perused the documents produced by the parties. On going through the Complainant’s pleadings and the documents before going to answer the I.A. dated 28.2.2009, questions have arisen before this Forum are:
(1) Whether this complainant has come before this Forum with clean hands?
(2) Whether the complaint is maintainable?

6. The Complainant in para No.1 of the subject matter has stated that he obtained the mobile telephone network connection of the Opposite Party and his mobile No.9844014995, it is a “pre paid network service”.

Contd……3

7. In the second para of the complaint, the Complainant has stated that in the month of November 2007 Complainant received two legal notices dated 15.11.2007, in one notice it was shown that Rs.49,135.60 was due from the Complainant and in another letter it was shown as Rs.28.241.13 was due from the Complainant. The most shocking matter is both the letters are dated 15.11.2007. After that Opposite Party’s employee persistently caused harassment and nuisance to the Complainant and they often visited the office of the Complainant and demanded the amount in presence of his assistant advocate and clients.

8. The Complainant further submitted that he received a notice dated 12.12.2007 from the office of the Member Secretary District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore wherein the Opposite Party demanded Rs.1,505.47 from the Complainant. It is further alleged that the Complainant put to constant harassment and mental torture and Opposite Parties in their letter dated 15.11.207 threatened the Complainant with criminal prosecution U/s 405, 406 and 420 IPC R/W Sec.190/200 and 357 of Cr.P.C.

9. Complainant alleged that he is a consumer and the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service. Hence prayed for the compensation towards mental agony and harassment Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith 12% interest and cost of the complaint.

10. Opposite Party No.3 filed the version contending that the Complainant was subscriber of mobile 9844014995 of the Opposite Party from 28.06.2003 under post plan i.e. Freedom 200.

11. On going through post paid application form No.118153 dated 28.6.2003, the Complainant has been allotted with a post paid network mobile No.9844185595 having Spice Telecom Account No.761547 with effect from 28.6.2003. In the said application the old mobile No.9844014995 reference has been given.

12. According to the documents, mobile No.9844185595 is a post paid and mobile No.9844014995 is prepaid network connection. In the notice dated 8.10.2008 the Complainant has stated that in the month of November 2007 he received two legal notices dated 15.11.2007 alleging that he used post paid services of the network No.761547 and further stated that he was a post paid customer of mobile network service since more than 8 years. The account number in respect of the post paid mobile No.9844185595 is allotted with account No.761547.

Contd……4

13. It is clear that the two notices dated 15.11.2007 demanding for Rs.49,135.60 and Rs.28,241.13 are with reference to the account No.561547 of postpaid in respect of mobile No. 9844185595.

14. The Complainant in first para of the complaint affirming that he is the subscriber of prepaid network service, in the subsequent para has clubbed the problem in respect of the post paid mobile connection has confused himself and made this Forum to confuse with the problem suppressing all the settled matters including the matter before Member Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Bangalore dated 12.12.2007 for Rs.1,505.47. This was waived by Opposite Parties on 29.10.2008 before filing this complaint by the Complainant on 27.12.2008. In the circumstances, there was no issue to agitate and there was no cause of action for Complainant to file this complaint. The Opposite Party has also not represented the case properly, they have specifically denied that there is no prepaid network service to the Complainant. In fact on the date of filing the complaint there was no due to the Opposite Party company.

15. The Complainant being an Advocate knowing fully the facts of the dispute has not disclosed the facts properly and in our view he has not come before this Forum with clean hands. Hence the point No.1 is answered in the Negative.

Point No.2:
In view of the Negative answer to point No.1, we hold that the complaint is not maintainable. The very complaint is not maintainable there is no need to pass order on the I.A. dated 28.02.2009 and pass

ORDER

Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Order dictated to the Stenographer, after the same is typed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 06th day of March 2009)

(P.C.Gopal)

President

(Bekal Lakshmana Nayak)

Member

(Mumtaz Begum)

Member

Complainant:

S.C.Lakshminarasimhalu
S/o. S.K. Chalapathy Setty
Aged about 32 years
R/at No.148, 2nd ‘A’ Main Road
Shakthi Garden
Moodalapalya
Nagarabhavi Main Road
Bangalore- 560 072


/vs/




Opposite Party:


M/s. Spice Communications Limited
Customer Care
Spice towers
No.75, Richmond Road
Civil Station
Bangalore-560 025
R/by its Manager


O R D E R



SRI. G. SIDDANAGOUD, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party (Op in short) for the refund of an amount of Rs.75/- with interest, compensation of Rs.90,000/- with costs and for such other reliefs.

The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is a subscriber of prepaid mobile phone NO.9844086879 with the Op from past 12 years and till date he is an existing customer of the Op (herein after called as Op). The said Op has more than lakhs and nearly 1 Crore subscriber today. That the complainant on 25/08/2008 at 11:07:35 am got a promotional SMS offer from the Op. The same is reproduces below:

“999 SMS DHAMAKA” !! Just pay Rs.9/- and get 999 local SMS free till 30 August 08!! Dial *789*1# or sms SDP6 to 789 to activate, 1st SMS will be charged @ Rs.9/- Hurry!.

That the complainant inspired, believing and after confirmation with the Op’s customer care executives on 25/08/2008 subscribed for the same on the next day thinking to promote his business to his customers and sent message to subscribe the said offer with the Op on 26/08/2008 at 10:32:52 am. The same was sanctioned by the Op by their reply SMS as below:

“Dear Subscriber, thank you for registering for this SMS pack. Enjoy your free SMS, Spice”.

That the Op for 1st SMS charged Rs.9/- and for subsequent 5 local messages did not deduct any amount. Further after confirming by sending 4 local SMS, the complainant being a professional financial advisor and more particularly a LIC Agent sent bulk group messages from his mobile phone to many of his customers promoting LIC plans on 26/08/2008 between about 11.00 am to 12.30 pm. The said two different messages are reproduced below.

“ Hello have a nice day LIC New plan “HEALTHY PLUS’ SAVE TAX, BIG RETURNS, ULIP + MEDICLAIM fr ur family. To know more plz call me back ur LIC AGENT NARASIMHA”

“Lic’s MARKET PLUS-1 Newly LAUNCED Again ON 17/06/2008. ULIP + LIFE TIME PENSION & much more featus. To know more please call me back. I, m yr LIC Agent Narasimha.”

That surprisingly, after sending group messages by the complainant a sum of Rs.75/- was deducted from his prepaid account. As such he immediately informed the same to the OP by a telephone all. On its receipt, the Op acknowledged by their reply on 26/08/2008 at 12:54:15 pm as reproduced below:

“Your service request number is 181078923. Our service advisor will revert to you by 27/08/2008, 15:30”.

That the OP as agreed did not solve the issue, but instead sent another message on 27/08/2008 at 01:59:25 pm to deprive and deceive the complainant. The said message is reproduced below:

“Dear user, 999 SMS offer is for selected users and was sent to u by oversight. The offer will be deactivated today and charges if any will be refunded by 1st Sep”.

That the complainant being a shop retailer running an Insurance promotion office alongwith Mobile recharging under the name and title “SRI VASAVI CONSULTANT”, demanded Op to refund his amount immediately on 27/08/2008, the OP instead kept dragging complainant’s issue by sending another message on 29/08/2008 at 11:03:44 am as reproduced below:

“Response to complaint. We are working towards a speedy resolution but need more time. Our resolution cell will get back to you by 29-Aug-08-Spice Telecom”.

In this regard an E-mail was also sent by the complainant to OP on 29/08/2008.

That the Op as agreed did not turn back to the complainant till 31/08/2008 as such the complainant again made several telephone calls to the OP customer care executives, which was twice disconnected by the OP(once by Mr. Harish) while the call was in process. Again, the complainant, tried again and again and remained the Op to solve his issue, one of the OP customer care executive namely Miss. Yusrtra, told the complainant that there is no existence of complaint and took another fresh complaint on the complainant’s above mentioned issue and also sent a new complaint No. by their message on 31/08/2008 at 02:13:16 pm as below reproduced:

“Your service request number is 181609879. Our service advisor will revert to you by 02/09/08, 11:16

The said telephone conversation is also recorded and the above mentioned all messages are preserved by the complainant in his mobile phone. That as agreed neither the Op as per their last assurance did not call on him till 02/09/2008 nor replied to complainant’s E-mail. Hence the complainant approached this forum.

Op appeared through its counsel, filed its version and also gave evidence by way of affidavit. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Counsels of both parties submitted their arguments.

The main contention of the learned counsel for Op that for activation and rental charges of Rs.12/- has been charged @ 6/- but that is not covered under the scheme. The learned counsel further submitted that complainant sent group SMS’s which are promotional SMS to improve his business transactions. As per customer agreement, he is not entitled for promotional SMS and the present scheme is all together a different one, not connected to promotional SMS. As per the guidelines issued by the Op is also clearly discloses in respect of promotional transactions under SMS.

The complainant is a subscriber of pre-paid mobile phone of Op for the past 12 years. The Op has produced the printed enrolment form in respect of pre-paid subscriber and the customer agreement printed in the said form. When we peruse the guidelines for the telemarketing – it is described that any message through telecommunication services for the purposes of soliciting or promoting any commercial transaction in relation to goods, investment or services. According to learned counsel for Op the group SMS sent by the complainant for purpose of investment and therefore it is not covered under the scheme offered by the Op and therefore complainant is liable to pay for such SMS.

Now the question arises, whether the telemarketing SMS are not covered under the scheme offered by the OP through SMS. When we peruse the SMS sent by the OP to its customers reads as follows “999 SMS DHAMAKA”!! Just pay Rs.9/- and get 999 local SMS free till 30 August 08!! Dial *789*1# or sms SDP6 to 789 to activate, 1st SMS will be charged @ Rs.9/- Hurry!. When we peruse the said SMS sent by the Op to all its customers, nowhere it is mentioned that the said SMS is not applicable to the promotional SMS or nowhere it is mentioned that terms and conditions are applicable. In the absence of specific instructions in the SMS one can read in general way that the said SMS is applicable to all purposes. The complainant became a member as pre-paid subscriber 12 years prior to the receiving of this SMS. When the OP is offering new scheme to its customers, it is the primary duty of the Op to provide or give all pros and cons to its customers through SMS. As a regular customer, the complainant opted to utilize the said benefits but later he came to know that the Op has misguided by charging the amount. When the misguiding SMS were sent to its customers, the customers are not liable to pay for the mistakes committed by the Op. This sort of an act on the part of the OP definitely amounts to deficiency in service.

The complainant has claimed Rs.75/- towards the charges collected from the OP. Learned counsel for Op submitted that it has collected only Rs.31/- and the amount of Rs.12/- as already been reverted. Under such circumstances, the OP is liable to refund an amount of Rs.31/- to the complainant.

In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Op. Accordingly, we pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is allowed. Opposite party is directed to refund an amount of Rs.31/- (Rupees Thirty one only) to the complainant within six weeks from the date of its order with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only).

Parvinder Singh s/o Nirmal Singh 35 years, Street no.2, Friends Colony, Nawanshahr.
Complainant.

Versus

1Spice Communications Ltd. C-105, Phase-VII Industrial Area Mohali-160055, through its President.

2Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, TRAI house, Safdur Enclave, Africa avenue, New Delhi, through its Chairman

3Prince Telecom, Jyoti Complex, Chandigarh road, Nawanshahr, through its proprietor.
Respondents
Complaint under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

BEFORE: SHRI S.M.S.MAHAL, PRESIDENT
SH. SUKHDEV SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. Atul Kasana, counsel for the OP No.1
Smt. Sushma Rani, counsel for the OP No.2
OP No.3 Exparte.
S.M.S.MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Parvinder Singh (hereinafter called as complainant), has filed this complaint against the Spice Communications Ltd. C-105, Phase-VII Industrial Area Mohali, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, TRAI house, Safdur Enclave, Africa avenue, New Delhi and Prince Telecom, Jyoti Complex , Chandigarh road, Nawanshahr (hereinafter called as Ops No. 1, 2, and 3 respectively) for seeking a direction to the ops to adjust the amount collected by the Ops from the complainant without his consent and also pay Rs 1,00,000/- by way of compensation/ loss and damages caused to him in addition to cost of litigation and also activate his mobile telephone numbers immediately.


2 Admittedly, the complainant is the consumer of the Ops with regard to mobile parent telephone connection no.9814313162 and “add on connections” no. 9814319162 as well as 9814713162. It is alleged by the complainant that under the guidelines issued by TRAI (Telephone Regulatory Authority of India) a customer is free to move to another tariff plan, without paying any fee but whenever the complainant changed the tariff plan the ops charged Rs 250/- to Rs 500/- every time. Moreover as per directions by the TRAI, the service provider should inform the customer within a week of activation of the service but the Ops did not inform in writing about the activation, as well as terms and conditions for his mobile numbers. It is added that whenever he demand call details of his connection the company charged Rs 50 per month in violation of the terms of TRAI.

According to him he had paid all the bills in time, but the company barred the outgoing calls many times which caused inconvenience to the complainant. Moreover, the company asked him to fax the statement of his bank account to confirm the clearance of cheques which increased his expenditure and indicated the poor quality of the service and negligence on the part of the ops. It is also alleged that company never answered his complaint in writing in spite of directions from TRAI and rather asked the complainant to talk with customer care executive only on mobile, who never answered properly to my queries. He had even lodged complaint dated 01-07-2006 and 05-10-2007 to the TRAI and despite instructions by the TRAI, the ops did not taken any action. On 23-07-2008 outgoing facility of the complainant was also stated to have been barred. It is further stated that OP charged Rs 25/- and Rs 35 in the name of the of pack renewal charges which he was never informed, at the time of the changing the packs. The add on facility was also claimed to have been disconnected by the Ops in the month of June and October respectively. The complainant thus claimed financial loss of Rs 1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint.


3 In the written version filed by the Ops, the maintainability of the complaint was challenged on the ground that the complainant had failed to disclose the cause of action or deficiency in service. On merits it was contended that the every service activation was done with customer’s consent and after activation of any service, confirmation ‘SMS’ are sent on the customer’s number. The complainant was also stated to have been sent the SMS by the Ops after activation of his service. The plan changes were stated to be free of cost but the complainant was alleged to have opted for “Bumper Plan” which was under special one time plan offer for which enrolment fee was charged from the complainant as per his option on 21-05-2006. All the details were stated to have been given to the complainant as per guidelines of the TRAI.



4 The disconnection of the connection of the complainant was not disputed. However, it was contended that the service were barred for failure of the complainant to make payment of bill and for the fact that the complainant exceeded the credit limit. His outgoing calls were stated to have been barred on 24-07-2008 and reconnected later on under goodwill, as the complainant had promised to pay the bill next day afternoon. On 25-07-2008 his outgoing calls facility on the parent telephone No. 98143-13162 was claimed to have been barred for non-payment of the dues of the add of connection . He was also stated to have failed to pay 3 bills of mobile no. 98147-13162. A pre barring call and SMS for payment was also stated to have been issued to him on 23-05-2008 his telephone outgoing facility on telephone no. 98147-13162 was alleged to have been barred for non-payment of the pending bill. An amount of Rs 1430/- was stated to be due from the complainant on 05-10-2008 when his outgoing calls were barred. The complainant was thus stated to be frivolous and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was accordingly made.


5 Both the parties have placed on record their respective evidence in the shape of affidavits and other documents.


6 We have considered the written as well as oral submissions advanced by the complainant as well as counsel for the ops and carefully scrutinized the evidence on record.


7 From the allegations in the complaint it is abundantly clear that the complainant was aggrieved of the charging of Rs 250/- to 500/- every time when he changed the tariff plan. In the written version filed by the ops it has been categorically denied that any amount was charged from him and rather plan changes were stated to be free of cost. The complainant was stated to have opted for bumper plan and under special offer one time plan, enrolment fee was charged from him. This option was stated to have been exercised by the complainant on 21-05-2006. There is nothing on record from the side of the complainant to contradict the ops. He has only placed on record Ex C-2 bill dated 30-04-2008 in which pack renewal charges of tune of Rs 25/- only were shown to have been charged from the complainant. The call details are also supplied alongwith this bill and the complainant has not been able to point out if any excess amount has been claimed from him. Bill dated 15-04-2008 Ex C-3 and bill dated 30-04-2008 Ex C-4 are also placed on record. All these bills relate to the telephone connections of the complainant baring no. 98143-13162, 98147-13162 and 98143-19162. From these bills no conclusion can be derived that there was any change of tariff plan by the complainant or amount of Rs 250/- to 500/- had ever been charged from him. He has not even placed on record any other bill to show that pack renewal charge of Rs 25/- were being claimed from him with every bill. Thus the complainant could not take any shelter of the guidelines issued by the TRAI to hold the ops liable in any way.




8 The complainant has also not been able to place on record any document to show that he had ever represented to the ops about the charging of the access amount by him with regard to the change of tariff plan or baring his outgoing calls facility on his telephone connection without any cause . He has also not been able to contradict the contention of the ops that his outgoing facility had been barred on different occasion for non-payment of the different bills due from him. It is not in dispute that the complainant is the consumer of the ops for the last many years and the last option to change the tariff plan was exercised by him in the year 2006. If at all the complainant had any grievance he could have issued a written notice to the ops but the evidence in this respect is lacking. The complaint allegedly filed by him to the TRAI on 01-07-2006 and 05-10-2007 has also not been brought on record. In these circumstances it will be unjust to draw any conclusion that the ops were in any way deficient in service towards the complainant.



9 As a consequence of the forgoing reasons, we find no merit in this complaint and as such the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Manjit Singh Sethi, 5319/1, New Shivaji Nagar, Ludhiana.

Versus

1- Spice Communication P Ltd., C-105, Phase-VII, Indl. Area-Mohali-160055 through authorized signatory.

2- Spice Communication P Ltd. Zoom Hotel near Sherpur Chowk, Ludhiana through authorized signatory.


1- Complainant had taken mobile connection no.98145-29722 from opposite party. Regarding his mobile, opposite party had charged complainant without his request, for certain services never sought by him. They claimed Rs.20/- as premium services charges, Rs.25/-pack renewal charges, Rs.99/- as Bindas Bol Local Charges and Rs.10/- clip charges. Such charges were raised illegally without any request from the complainant. Hence, opposite party no.2 through their officials, was apprised to withdraw illegal demand in the bills, who showed helplessness, as billing was done by opposite party no.1.

Thereafter, opposite party no.1 through their customer relationno.98140-12345,was informed about illegal levying of such charges in the billing. Qua it, speed post letter dated 3.12.2007 was also served on both opposite parties. Despite it, they failed to redress his grievances. Further claimed that earlier, qua such grievance, complainant has filed a complaint for the period 7/07 and 8/2007, which was compounded on 28.2.2008, on paying compensation of Rs.2000/- by the opposite party. Despite it, they failed to remove the discrepancies in further billing till date. For causing harassment and resorting to unfair trade practice, instituted the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation costs and cancel the illegal charges.

2- Opposite party in reply, claimed that no cause of action is disclosed by the complainant and complaint is false and vexatious, deserves dismissal. Obtaining mobile connection from them by the complainant, is conceded, but his allegations are denied. Rs.20/- were charged for premium services called caller song service. For this, Rs.30/- was charged for activation and Rs.16/- were charged every month for renewal of the same and Rs. 28/- were charged as annual pack renewal charges. Complainant himself availed Bindas Bol Local Pack on 7.7.2007 and he never requested to discontinue the same. They have received request of the complainant, to discontinue Bindas Bol Local Pack on 7.7.2008 and since then, pack has been discontinued. Charges of Rs.99/- are not being charged from him since then. Consequently, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Compounding earlier complaint of the complainant is admitted, but claimed that it was done to reduce the litigation

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard though their respective counsels.

4- Complainant in support of the allegations, has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW1/A and placed on the record, copy of invoice Ex.C1 dated 7.11.2007, Ex.C2 dated 7th January, 2008 and Ex.C3 dated 7th February, 2008.In all the bills, Rs.25/- per month as pack renewal charges were claimed from him. In bill Ex.C3, clip charges of Rs.10/-and Rs.25/- as Bindas Bol Local Pack, were claimed. Opposite party has not placed on the record, any material that complainant had made any request to provide pack renewal as well as Bindas Bol Local Pack.

Though opposite party in reply, have taken specific plea that Bindas Bol Local Pack was discontinued w.e.f. 7.7.2008 after receipt of request from the complainant. But complainant had issued letter Ex.C4 dated 3.12.2007 to the opposite party, calling upon them to cut off pack renewal charges alongwith clip charges and pack renewal charges etc. from his bill. This letter issued by the complainant under postal Speed Post receipt Ex.C5. So, it means in December, 2007, qua charging illegal charges, notice was given by the complainant and nothing was done by them to rectify the same. But continued to claim the same from his bills. This made the complainant to re-agitate the matter by issuing another notice Ex.C8 dated 2.8.2008. As in his invoice dated 7th July, 2008 Ex.C9, Bindas Bol Local Pack charges Rs.125/-, Clip charges Rs.10/- and pack renewal charges Rs.25/- were again claimed. Then complainant had to issue another speed post letter Ex.C10 dated 16.6.2008 and Ex.C11 dated 24.5.2008 to the opposite party. Because in his bill for the month of May, 2008 Ex.C12, they had again claimed Bindas Bol Local Pack charges Rs.125/-, clip charges Rs.10/- as well as in bill Ex. C13 dated 7.4.2008, Ex.C14 dated 7the June, 2008.

5- It is again pertinent to note that complainant previously was also made to file complaint qua resorting to unfair trade practice by the opposite party, which they got compounded, by paying him compensation of Rs.2000/-, as admitted by them in their written statement. So, all these aspects go to show and prove to the hilt that opposite party has resorted to unfair trade practice and failed to rectify intentional charges claimed from the complainant despite approaching by him times and again. Complainant repeatedly had written many letters in this behalf to the complainant which was received by them, but they failed to redress his grievances. Such act on part of opposite party certainly would amount to enrich their coffers by hook or crook, by resorting to unfair trade practice by way of cheating their own consumer.
6- Therefore, we allow this complaint and consequently, direct opposite party to discontinue forthwith claiming illegal charges such as “Premium Services charges”, pack renewal charges, Bindas Bol Local Charges and clip charges from his mobile connection. For causing harassment, inconvenience to the complainant, also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.6000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2000/- within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.

Gurwinder Singh (aged 32 years 2 months) son of Sh.Harbhajan Singh, resident of village: Datewal, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.



......Complainant.



Versus



Incharge, Punjab Circle, Spice Communication Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Limited) C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali-160 055.



......Opposite Party.









Sh.Gurwinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Incharge, Punjab Circle, Spice Communication Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Limited) C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali-160055-OP (herein-after referred to as ‘Spice Communication’) directing them to refund the amount which was illegally deducted from his account; to direct them not to install any scheme on his connection without his written request and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

2. Briefly stated, Gurwinder Singh complainant has mobile connection no.98554-56490 of the OP-Spice Communication. That the complainant came to know about three months back when he got his connection recharged that the OP-Spice Communication had deducted some amount from his account without any scheme taken by him. That on 6.1.2009 after few hours of recharging of his connection, the OP-Spice Communication deducted Rs.39/- out of his balance amount. Similarly, on 5.2.2009 the OP-Spice Communication also deducted Rs.39/- out of his balance amount when he took recharge card of Rs.50/- on account of some ‘bhagti sagar’ scheme whereas the complainant never took such scheme from the OP-Spice Communication.


Not only this, on 12.2.2009 the OP-Spice Communication again deducted Rs.10/- out of his recharged amount of Rs.20/- on account of some scheme ‘radio service’ without his written request. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP-Spice Communication not to install such scheme on his connection without his written request and also to refund the aforesaid amounts deducted by them, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OP-Spice Communication has caused great mental tension and harassment to him. Hence the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-Spice Communication, who appeared through Sh.Vishal Jain Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has failed to establish any cause of action against them. In fact, the complainant got the ‘gurbani service’ activated through his handset and as such the OP-Spice Communication has rightly deducted the charges from his account. However, said service was deactivated on his phone in pursuance of his request dated 12.2.2009.


As a goodwill gesture and in order to retain the customer, they have credited the deducted amount of Rs.39/- in his account on 17.2.2009. Similarly, the radio service activated by the complainant on his request was also deactivated as per his request on 16.2.2009 and the amount of Rs.10/- deducted from his account was refunded and credited in his account on 17.2.2009 and that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the mobile connection in question stands in the name of Kulwinder Singh and the same was activated on 13.12.2007. On merits, the OP-Spice Communication took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections. It was also averred that the charges were deducted on account of the services availed by the complainant and were activated at his own request. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.

4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of letter Ex.A2 and closed his evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP-Spice Communication tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Manoj Madan Manager (Finance) and closed their evidence.

6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Baljinder Singh ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Vishal Jain ld. counsel for the OPs-Communication and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

7. Sh.Baljinder Singh ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP-Spice Communication has wrongly and illegally twice deducted Rs.30/- and Rs.10/- from the balance amount of the complainant when he purchased the recharge coupons.

8. On the other hand, Sh.Vishal Jain ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication has argued that the complaint is not maintainable because the mobile connection was issued by them in the name of Kulwinder Singh and not Gurwinder Singh complainant, so he has no locus standie to file the present complaint. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication has full force. Admittedly, the mobile connection no. 98554-56490 was issued in the name of Kulwinder Singh vide application dated 13.12.2007. Alongwith this application, Kulwinder Singh had submitted his photo and photo copy of his driving licence at the time of taking the said connection. These documents have been produced by the ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication at the time of arguments to prove that the connection in question was never issued in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, but the same was issued to Kulwinder Singh son of Chanchal Singh, resident of village: Fatehpur Jhugian, Distt.Moga. Moreover, the address and particulars of the complainant differ from the address and particulars of Kulwinder Singh as mentioned in the application as well as in driving licence.


These aforesaid documents also corroborated that the mobile connection in question was never issued in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, but the same was issued in the name of said Kulwinder Singh. It appears that Gurwinder Singh complainant had been using the connection of Kulwinder Singh for some extraneous consideration. When the OP-Spice Communication had not issued the mobile connection in question in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, he has no right, title or interest to file the present complaint. So we hold that Gurwinder Singh complainant has no locus standie and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable.

9. So far as the deduction of Rs.39/- twice and Rs.10/- from the balance amount of this connection is concerned, it is in evidence that due to goodwill gesture and in order to retain the customer, the OP-Spice Communication had credited Rs.39/- and Rs.10/- in the said mobile account. Although the ‘gurbani service’ and ‘radio service’ schemes were got activated by the user through his handset. So, the OP-Spice Communication has rightly not given the credit of second deduction of Rs.39/- in the account of said mobile connection because it was got activated by its user from his handset. Photo copy of the monthly bill of Kulwinder Singh son of Chanchal Singh produced at the time of arguments shows that said services were got activated by its user from his handset.


In rebuttal, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he is the actual consumer of the OP-Spice Communication having mobile connection no. 98554-56490 or that he did not get activated the ‘gurbani service’ as well as ‘radio service’ on the mobile connection in question. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce the affidavit of the dealer M/s.Sukhmani Telecom, Kot Ise Khan from whom he got issued the mobile connection in question in order to prove that he is actual consumer of the OP-Spice Communication or that he had given the application to get the mobile connection in question. In view of these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP-Spice Communication has committed any deficiency in service.

10. The complainant has not properly sued the OP-Spice Communication because the OP-Spice Communication is a limited company and it can not be sued through Incharge, Punjab Circle and can only be sued through one of its Directors or Managing Director. Hence, the OP-Spice Communication has not been properly sued by the complainant and the complaint is defective on this score also and it deserves dismissal.

11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

12. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and the same is dismissed. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and thereafter, the file be consigned to the record room.




There is no need to repeat the facts. We have heard the arguments and going through the documentary evidence on the file, main grievance of the complainant had taken the connection of Spice Communication Limited, OP wrongly deducted the Rs.39/- on 6.1.2009, again Rs.39/- on 5.2.2009, again Rs.10/- on 12.2.2009 of his pre-paid connection no. 98554-56490. On the other hand, OP has alleged that the complainant is not their customer, as connection no. 98554-56490 is in the name of Kulwinder Singh. The deduction has been made on account of activating facility of Gurbani service and radio service which were at the request of complainant.

First contradiction has been taken by OP the complainant is the consumer qua the OP or not?. I do not find any force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the OP in this regard because they have alleged in their reply that the connection number no. 98554-56490 is in the name of Kulwinder Singh. They have simply placed on record the affidavit of Manoj Madan Ex.R1, except they have not proved on record any application form in this regard. On the other hand, the complainant alongwith his affidavit stated there in that he purchased the said connection from Sukhmani Telecom Kot Ise Khan in December 2007 and also placed on record letter of OP Ex.A2 issued by Customer Care Centre of OP. This letter is addressed to Gurwinder Singh (complainant) from the top of the letter. If the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, there is no necessity of OP even entertain his complaint and to reply the same. The considered view is that complainant is a consumer of the OP and he is actually using the said mobile connection.

It is admitted by the OP that they have deducted Rs.39/- on 6.1.2009, again Rs.39/- on 5.2.2009, again Rs.10/- on 12.2.2009 of his pre- paid amount of the complainant. The present relation between the parties are governed through an application called as subscriber application form, which is written document. The arguments of the learned counsel for the OP that the facility of gurbani service and radio service was activated at the request of the complainant is not convincing to my mind because they have failed to place on record any written request of the complainant to activated these facilities. The arguments of OP was that these facilities were activated on the hand set on the request of the complainant, is not accepted. When the entire system of the mobile is that the services was activated is in the custody of the dominion of the OP. It is not established by the OP that it is activated the services at the request of the complainant. They were in the custody of the pre paid money of the complainant.


They can not use the pre- paid money of the consumer the way they like, except with the written request of the particulars of the consumer. These acts against the rules framed by TRAI. OP raised objections that Moga Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as their Head Quarter is situated at Mohali. I do not agree with this contention of the OP because the complainant has got connection from Sukhmani Telecom, Kot Ise Khan, Distt.Moga. So the Moga Consumer Forum has got jurisdiction to decide the present complaint.

Summing up, in the light of these facts, I accept this complaint with compensation of Rs.1000/- alongwith Rs.500/- as costs of litigation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

D.K. Malhotra son of Sh. S. R. Malhotra C/o Chamber No.223, 2nd Floor, Lawyer’s Chambers Complex, Distt. Courts, Ludhiana and resident of 7-G, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus



1- M/s Spice Communication Limited, 107-A, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Branch Head.

2- The Branch Head, M/s Spice Communication Limited, 107-A, The Mall, Ludhiana

…..Opposite parties.






O R D E R








1- Complainant obtained mobile connection vide account no.451426 from the opposite party, who allotted him mobile no.98148-13065. Qua his mobile, opposite party issued bill dated 31.12.2008, claiming Rs.595/-. In the bill, they had illegally claimed Rs.199/- and when such illegal charges were pointed, opposite party modified the bill and charged him Rs.400/- instead of Rs.595/-.


Then after 4 days, they issued receipt dated 5.1.2009 in his favour. But despite receipt of payment, they illegally barred outgoing calls of his mobile. His request to re-start outgoing calls, was not cared and delayed the matter on false pretext. Also served legal notice dated 3.2.2009, calling upon opposite party, to restore outgoing calls, to which they paid no heed. Such illegal act of opposite party caused professional loss to the complainant, who is a practicing lawyer and also caused him torture, physical harassment. Consequently, by filing present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith direction to refund Rs.199/- charged illegally on account of “Chak De Usage Package”.

2- Opposite parties in reply admitted complainant to be their consumer. But they averred that his mobile connection was activated on 27th October, 2003. Complainant was charged for “Chak De Usage Pack”, from May to December and the pack was activated on 2nd May. The complainant in between never complained for the activation.


For the first time, he inquired qua the pack on 9.9.2008. On that day, when his request for de-activation for “Chak De Usage Pack”, was received at Ludhiana showroom, the same was registered and pack got de-activated at the end of billing cycle 31.12.2008. On 11.12.2008, complainant was committed a waiver of Rs.400/- only for two months, which was credited on 10th December, 2008. Complainant has alleged making payment of Rs.400/- on 5th January. But the same is not reflected on their record and payment of Rs.400/- received on 5th January, Services of the phone of complainant barred on 27th January, due to non payment of bills. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint being meritless, deserves dismissal.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Grouse of the complainant is qua bill Ex.C1 dated 31.12.008, through which regarding his mobile, demand of Rs.595.23 was raised. The bill is in printed form. But by hand, written receipt of Rs.395/- on 15.1.2009. However, receipt Ex.C2 bearing no.61810 dated 15th January, 2009 was issued to the complainant, for Rs.400/-. It is in these circumstances, case of the complainant that wrong bill of Rs.595.23 (Ex.C1) was issued to him and when he protested qua certain charges, the same was corrected and charged him Rs.400/-, instead of Rs.595/-. Then issued receipt Ex.C2. Such claim of the complainant is born out from these documents. Therefore, apparent that against bill raised for Rs.595.23, opposite party corrected the same and received as full payment Rs.400/- from the complainant. It means by due date of payment 15.1.2009, nothing was payable qua use of his phone by the complainant to opposite party.


They consequently, wrongly barred outgoing facility of his phone. We may state that opposite party in reply, have admitted barring subscriber’s services on 27th January, due to non payment of bills. But they have not brought on record, any of such bill or bills, to justify their action of debarring outgoing facilities of mobile of the complainant. This means nothing was due from the complainant in January, 2009, when his outgoing calls were debarred. By debarring the same, certainly opposite party would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, which not only hindered professional work of the complainant, as an advocate, but also must have caused inconvenience, sufferance and agony to him.

5- During pendency of the complaint, on application of the complainant, interim order for restoration of the phone, was issued, which we are told having been complied by opposite party. Consequently, we need not pass any order qua restoration of mobile phone of the complainant. Opposite parties are guilty of not restoring outgoing facility of mobile of the complainant, despite the fact that he had served them notice Ex.C3, sent vide postal receipt Ex.C4 and then consequently, compelled him to come to the Fora. Conduct of the opposite party by debarring outgoing facility of mobile phone of complainant, as such, was wholly unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

6- Resultantly, we allow this complaint and for causing harassment to the complainant, opposite party ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant, within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

Gurwinder Singh (aged 32 years 2 months) son of Sh.Harbhajan Singh, resident of village: Datewal, Tehsil & Distt.Moga.



Complainant.



Versus



Incharge, Punjab Circle, Spice Communication Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Limited) C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali-160 055.



Opposite Party.






Sh.Gurwinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as ‘Act’) against Incharge, Punjab Circle, Spice Communication Limited (Associate of Idea Cellular Limited) C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-7, Mohali-160055-OP (herein-after referred to as ‘Spice Communication’) directing them to refund the amount which was illegally deducted from his account; to direct them not to install any scheme on his connection without his written request and also to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

2. Briefly stated, Gurwinder Singh complainant has mobile connection no.98554-56490 of the OP-Spice Communication. That the complainant came to know about three months back when he got his connection recharged that the OP-Spice Communication had deducted some amount from his account without any scheme taken by him. That on 6.1.2009 after few hours of recharging of his connection, the OP-Spice Communication deducted Rs.39/- out of his balance amount. Similarly, on 5.2.2009 the OP-Spice Communication also deducted Rs.39/- out of his balance amount when he took recharge card of Rs.50/- on account of some ‘bhagti sagar’ scheme whereas the complainant never took such scheme from the OP-Spice Communication.


Not only this, on 12.2.2009 the OP-Spice Communication again deducted Rs.10/- out of his recharged amount of Rs.20/- on account of some scheme ‘radio service’ without his written request. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP-Spice Communication not to install such scheme on his connection without his written request and also to refund the aforesaid amounts deducted by them, but to no effect. That the aforesaid act and conduct of the OP-Spice Communication has caused great mental tension and harassment to him. Hence the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP-Spice Communication, who appeared through Sh.Vishal Jain Advocate and filed written reply contesting the same. They took up preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has failed to establish any cause of action against them. In fact, the complainant got the ‘gurbani service’ activated through his handset and as such the OP-Spice Communication has rightly deducted the charges from his account. However, said service was deactivated on his phone in pursuance of his request dated 12.2.2009.


As a goodwill gesture and in order to retain the customer, they have credited the deducted amount of Rs.39/- in his account on 17.2.2009. Similarly, the radio service activated by the complainant on his request was also deactivated as per his request on 16.2.2009 and the amount of Rs.10/- deducted from his account was refunded and credited in his account on 17.2.2009 and that the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the mobile connection in question stands in the name of Kulwinder Singh and the same was activated on 13.12.2007.


On merits, the OP-Spice Communication took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in preliminary objections. It was also averred that the charges were deducted on account of the services availed by the complainant and were activated at his own request. All other allegations contained in the complaint were specifically denied being wrong and incorrect. Hence it was prayed that the complaint filed by the complainant has no merit and it deserves dismissal.

4. To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.A1, copy of letter Ex.A2 and closed his evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the OP-Spice Communication tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.R1 of Sh.Manoj Madan Manager (Finance) and closed their evidence.

6. We have heard the arguments of Sh.Baljinder Singh ld. counsel for the complainant and Sh.Vishal Jain ld. counsel for the OPs-Communication and have very carefully perused the evidence on the file.

7. Sh.Baljinder Singh ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly argued that the OP-Spice Communication has wrongly and illegally twice deducted Rs.30/- and Rs.10/- from the balance amount of the complainant when he purchased the recharge coupons.

8. On the other hand, Sh.Vishal Jain ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication has argued that the complaint is not maintainable because the mobile connection was issued by them in the name of Kulwinder Singh and not Gurwinder Singh complainant, so he has no locus standie to file the present complaint. This contention of the ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication has full force. Admittedly, the mobile connection no. 98554-56490 was issued in the name of Kulwinder Singh vide application dated 13.12.2007.


Alongwith this application, Kulwinder Singh had submitted his photo and photo copy of his driving licence at the time of taking the said connection. These documents have been produced by the ld.counsel for the OP-Spice Communication at the time of arguments to prove that the connection in question was never issued in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, but the same was issued to Kulwinder Singh son of Chanchal Singh, resident of village: Fatehpur Jhugian, Distt.Moga. Moreover, the address and particulars of the complainant differ from the address and particulars of Kulwinder Singh as mentioned in the application as well as in driving licence.


These aforesaid documents also corroborated that the mobile connection in question was never issued in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, but the same was issued in the name of said Kulwinder Singh. It appears that Gurwinder Singh complainant had been using the connection of Kulwinder Singh for some extraneous consideration. When the OP-Spice Communication had not issued the mobile connection in question in the name of Gurwinder Singh complainant, he has no right, title or interest to file the present complaint. So we hold that Gurwinder Singh complainant has no locus standie and the complaint filed by him is not maintainable.

9. So far as the deduction of Rs.39/- twice and Rs.10/- from the balance amount of this connection is concerned, it is in evidence that due to goodwill gesture and in order to retain the customer, the OP-Spice Communication had credited Rs.39/- and Rs.10/- in the said mobile account. Although the ‘gurbani service’ and ‘radio service’ schemes were got activated by the user through his handset. So, the OP-Spice Communication has rightly not given the credit of second deduction of Rs.39/- in the account of said mobile connection because it was got activated by its user from his handset. Photo copy of the monthly bill of Kulwinder Singh son of Chanchal Singh produced at the time of arguments shows that said services were got activated by its user from his handset.



In rebuttal, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove that he is the actual consumer of the OP-Spice Communication having mobile connection no. 98554-56490 or that he did not get activated the ‘gurbani service’ as well as ‘radio service’ on the mobile connection in question. Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce the affidavit of the dealer M/s.Sukhmani Telecom, Kot Ise Khan from whom he got issued the mobile connection in question in order to prove that he is actual consumer of the OP-Spice Communication or that he had given the application to get the mobile connection in question. In view of these circumstances, the complainant has failed to prove that the OP-Spice Communication has committed any deficiency in service.

10. The complainant has not properly sued the OP-Spice Communication because the OP-Spice Communication is a limited company and it can not be sued through Incharge, Punjab Circle and can only be sued through one of its Directors or Managing Director. Hence, the OP-Spice Communication has not been properly sued by the complainant and the complaint is defective on this score also and it deserves dismissal.

11. The ld. counsel for the parties did not urge or argue any other point before us.

Rajiv Gupta son of late Shri Ramesh Gupta, C/o M.L. Gupta and Company, 99, Industrial Area A, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.


1. Spice Communications Limited, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase VII, Mohali through its Regional manager/General Manager.



2. Spice Communications Limited, Opposite Stock Exchange, near Ludhiana Improvement Trust Building, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.



3. Satya Sai Associates known as S.S.A. Ghumar Mandi, Near Bhaiwala Chowk, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

………

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:



1. Complainant obtained mobile connection no. 98144-39340 from the opposite parties having credit limit of Rs.8500/-. On this mobile, obtained international roaming facility by paying Rs. 6500/- vide receipt no.47 dated 24.4.2003 for one time only in Colombo & Sri Lanka. Thereafter, he several times visited foreign countries, but never used international roaming facility nor such was available on his mobile. All bills upto 31.5.2008 of the mobile were cleared. But received invoice dated 30.6.2008 for the period 1.6.2006 to 30.6.2008, claiming a sum of Rs.4104.53p of current invoice and Rs.24,161.03p as previous balance. Such demand raised through invoice of the opposite party dated 30.6.08 is claimed to be null, void and illegal by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Because, complainant assailed that he had cleared his bills upto 30.6.2008, so, demand deserves to be set aside.

2. Opposite party in reply admitted the complainant to be their consumer qua mobile connection no. 98144-39340. But justified the demand raised under the impugned bill. It is averred that complainant used international roaming facility in June, 2008, so, demand raised is proper and legal. His total outstanding of mobile upto July 2008 was Rs. 26,765/- including current balance of Rs.24,161/- of June and Rs.4004/- as balance. It is denied in these circumstances that complainant obtained international roaming facility only for Colombo and Sri Lanka. Rather international roaming was activated for whole of the world and he never got it de-activated. He utilized international roaming facility, so, liable to pay user charges.

3. In order to prove their respective assertions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. It is not denied that complainant is consumer under the opposite party having mobile connection no. 98144-39340 and he vide receipt dated 24.4.2003 Ex.C2 by paying Rs.6500/- obtained international roaming facility from the opposite party. Plea of the complainant that this roaming facility was for one time, only for Colombo and Sri Lanka, need to be rejected despite his own affidavit. Because, it is not specified in this receipt Ex.C.2 that international roaming facility was provided for one time only for Colombo and Sri Lanka by charging Rs.6500/-. It means international roaming facility was for the entire world except for the countries for which company does not offer the same. Such plea of the complainant stand belied from this receipt Ex.C.2.

6. Complainant has challenged the bill Ex.C.7 dated 30.6.2008 under which Rs. 24,161.03p as current invoice and previous balance of Rs.4104.53p has been claimed form him. In this bill entry dated 30.6.2008 is of using mobile by the complainant for Egypt. It shows that in June,2008 he used international roaming facility on his mobile. Plea of the complainant that it was one time roaming facility for Colombo and Sri Lanka only, as discussed earlier, is belied. He never surrendered roaming facility on his mobile phone, after applying for it in the year 2003.

7. Opposite party to show that the complainant had not paid his bills of use of his mobile, has placed on record bill dated 29.2.2008 showing previous balance of Rs. 1449.99 and current bill of Rs.2185.66p and received nothing from him. Next bill dated 31.3.2008 is for current bill of Rs.1532.10p and previous balance of Rs. 3735.65p, but paid nothing.

8. Likewise, next bill dated 30.4.2008 was issued showing previous balance of Rs.5373.67p and current bill of Rs.1859.60p, but paid nothing. Next bill dated 31.5.2008 was issued with previous balance of Rs. 7333.27 and current bill of Rs.1671.26, out of which he paid Rs.5000/- only. The last bill is dated 30.6.2008 showing balance of Rs.4104.53p and current bill amount of Rs.24,161.03p. In this bill, payment of Rs. 1500/- is shown as received. This bill also contains usage of roaming facility on phone in Egypt. In these circumstances, claim of the complainant that he was footed by wrong bill by the opposite party is wrong because he used the roaming facility on his mobile and it is totally a bundle of lies. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, finding no merit, we dismiss the complaint leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Pashupatinath International, Raj Towers, Link Road, Near Samrala Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor Sh. Rohit Goyal son of Sh.Yash Raj Goyal.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. M/s Spice Communication, Mohali through its authorised signatory.



2. Spice Communications, Adjoining Ebony Departmental Store, The Mall, Ludhiana.

(Opposite parties)



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

….


O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant took two mobile connections bearing no.98140-24057 and 98145-24057 from the opposite party. As father of the complainant intended to go to U.S.A for a month, from 12.6.2007 to 12.7.2007, obtained international roaming service from the opposite party. After returning of his father to India on 12.7.2007, intimated opposite party to withdraw international roaming facility from mobile no.98145-24057. But opposite party failed to comply with his instructions despite repeated reminders and visits. They despite such request of withdrawal of the facility, continued to charge Rs.149/- per month in his monthly bills and charged Rs.1490/- as international roaming charges. Though no use of the phone for international roaming was made by the complainant. Before providing international roaming facility, opposite party had taken Rs.5500/- as security, which has also not been refunded.

Second grouse raised by the complainant is that opposite party has charged Rs.100/- per month as decline charges -credit card on mobile no.98140-24057 without any logic or rationale. Though opposite party had security amount of Rs.5500/- with them and despite it they barred his incoming and outgoing calls on both the mobile phones illegally and unauthorisedly. This prevented complainant from keeping contact with his customers, causing heavy financial loss. Hence, legal notice dated 29.5.2008 was sent to the opposite party for refund of Rs.2690/- illegally charged and also to refund security amount of Rs.5500/-, but they failed to do so. Hence, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for such relief as well has sought compensation of Rs. 55,000/- from the opposite party.

2. Opposite party in reply admitted obtaining two mobile connections by the complainant from them and that had also taken roaming facility on one mobile. But disputed and denied rest all his allegations. It is averred that any request was ever made by the complainant to deactivate or discontinue international roaming service of the mobile. Till date, no such request in writing for deactivation of the international roaming facility has been received from the complainant. So, he has been rightly charged for availing international roaming facility. Amount of security was charged as per norms of the TRAI and same can be refunded only after disconnection of the international roaming facility which is still being availed by the complainant. When complainant failed to pay outstanding amount, facilities to his mobile were legally withdrawn. They have also denied charging Rs.100/- as decline charges-credit card of the complainant. So, claimed that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserve dismissal.

3. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. In this case, complainant claims three distinct relieves. First is charging illegally qua use of international roaming facility, despite request to discontinue the same. Second is charging Rs.100/- as decline-credit card of the complainant and third is non refund of the security amount of Rs. 5500/-.

6. It is not in dispute that on request of the complainant, international roaming facility after receipt of security of Rs.5500/- was provided on mobile no.98145-24057, which the complainant requested for a month. But defence of the opposite party for not deactivating international roaming facility is that no such formal request in writing for such deactivation was received from the complainant. Therefore, he continued to be charged for providing such facility in bills Ex. C.1 to C11 by claiming Rs.149/- per month. At the time of arguments, it is conceded by the complainant that no request in writing was made to opposite party to discontinue international roaming facility on this mobile and only a telephonic request was made. Sh. Govind Puri Adv. ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that it was made clear to the complainant to make request in writing for deactivation of international roaming facility, but he failed to apply in writing and as such charges for international roaming facility were rightly and legally claimed from the complainant. Therefore, it is supplemented by arguing that as per policy of the opposite party such international roaming facility can only be withdrawn if subscriber applies for such withdrawal in writing. Otherwise, consumer can drag the service provider to litigation for withdrawal of international roaming facility without request.

7. In the instant case, it is apparent that no request was made by the complainant for withdrawal of international roaming facility and verbal request would not have the affect of making request in writing. Therefore, if verbal request of the complainant to withdraw such facility was not considered, we can not say that opposite party have acted illegally. As such, there was no negligence on the part of opposite party nor can be termed guilty of deficiency in service by not deactivating international roaming facility on oral request.

8. The connected relief is also non refund of security amount of Rs.5500/- given for international roaming facility availed by the complainant. . When the facility was not got withdrawn by making request in writing, he could not have entitled for refund of the same. By not refunding the security, opposite party certainly would not be guilty of misconduct or resorting to unfair trade practice.

9. Now coming to next plea that complainant was charged Rs.100/- per month as decline charges of credit card on mobile no. 98140-24057 without any logic or rationale. Such charges have been claimed from the complainant in bills Ex. C.13 to C20 commencing from Oct. 2007 to Feb. 2009. These allegations of the complainant, contained in para no.6 of the complaint have been denied by the opposite party. So, it means that denied charging of Rs.100/- per month as decline charges of credit card. But documents Ex.C.13 to C.20 prove otherwise. It means Rs.800/- were charged from the complainant who is able to prove that notwithstanding denial by the opposite party. So, appears no justification in making such charges against mobile no.98140-24057 of the complainant. Hence, amount so realized under head decline charges-credit card is arbitrary and illegal. Ld. counsel for the opposite party tried to justify the same by arguing that the complainant had authorised to meet his mobile bills through online payment and that bank refused to make payment, so, decline charges of credit card were imposed. But no statement of bank record, which had issued the credit had is placed on the record. There is no proof that on line charges qua use of mobile phone of the complainant were declined by his banker. Therefore, such submission of the opposite party would be meaning less. Moreover, opposite party has denied realizing such amount from the complainant, who is able to prove raising such demand in his bills.

10. In view of aforesaid discussions, it is apparent that complaint deserves to be partly allowed. On account of charging Rs.100/- per month as decline charges-credit card qua one mobile of the complainant as apparent from bills Ex.C.13 to C20, we order refund of this amount to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment, if already realized and paid by the complainant to the opposite party. However, qua compensation claimed, we are not passing any order, because complainant had as per defense of the opposite party failed to pay international roaming charges, due to which incoming and outgoing call facility of the mobiles of the complainant were barred. In peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Compliance of the order be made within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order, which be made available to the parties free of costs.

D.K. Malhotra son of Sh. S. R. Malhotra C/o Chamber No.223, 2nd Floor, Lawyer’s Chambers Complex, Distt. Courts, Ludhiana and resident of 7-G, Kitchlu Nagar, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.

Versus



1- M/s Spice Communication Limited, 107-A, The Mall, Ludhiana through its Branch Head.

2- The Branch Head, M/s Spice Communication Limited, 107-A, The Mall, Ludhiana

…..Opposite parties.

O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant obtained mobile connection vide account no.451426 from the opposite party, who allotted him mobile no.98148-13065. Qua his mobile, opposite party issued bill dated 31.12.2008, claiming Rs.595/-. In the bill, they had illegally claimed Rs.199/- and when such illegal charges were pointed, opposite party modified the bill and charged him Rs.400/- instead of Rs.595/-. Then after 4 days, they issued receipt dated 5.1.2009 in his favour. But despite receipt of payment, they illegally barred outgoing calls of his mobile.

His request to re-start outgoing calls, was not cared and delayed the matter on false pretext. Also served legal notice dated 3.2.2009, calling upon opposite party, to restore outgoing calls, to which they paid no heed. Such illegal act of opposite party caused professional loss to the complainant, who is a practicing lawyer and also caused him torture, physical harassment. Consequently, by filing present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith direction to refund Rs.199/- charged illegally on account of “Chak De Usage Package”.

2- Opposite parties in reply admitted complainant to be their consumer. But they averred that his mobile connection was activated on 27th October, 2003. Complainant was charged for “Chak De Usage Pack”, from May to December and the pack was activated on 2nd May. The complainant in between never complained for the activation.

For the first time, he inquired qua the pack on 9.9.2008. On that day, when his request for de-activation for “Chak De Usage Pack”, was received at Ludhiana showroom, the same was registered and pack got de-activated at the end of billing cycle 31.12.2008. On 11.12.2008, complainant was committed a waiver of Rs.400/- only for two months, which was credited on 10th December, 2008. Complainant has alleged making payment of Rs.400/- on 5th January. But the same is not reflected on their record and payment of Rs.400/- received on 5th January, Services of the phone of complainant barred on 27th January, due to non payment of bills. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part and complaint being meritless, deserves dismissal.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Grouse of the complainant is qua bill Ex.C1 dated 31.12.008, through which regarding his mobile, demand of Rs.595.23 was raised. The bill is in printed form. But by hand, written receipt of Rs.395/- on 15.1.2009. However, receipt Ex.C2 bearing no.61810 dated 15th January, 2009 was issued to the complainant, for Rs.400/-. It is in these circumstances, case of the complainant that wrong bill of Rs.595.23 (Ex.C1) was issued to him and when he protested qua certain charges, the same was corrected and charged him Rs.400/-, instead of Rs.595/-. Then issued receipt Ex.C2. Such claim of the complainant is born out from these documents. Therefore, apparent that against bill raised for Rs.595.23, opposite party corrected the same and received as full payment Rs.400/- from the complainant. It means by due date of payment 15.1.2009, nothing was payable qua use of his phone by the complainant to opposite party.

They consequently, wrongly barred outgoing facility of his phone. We may state that opposite party in reply, have admitted barring subscriber’s services on 27th January, due to non payment of bills. But they have not brought on record, any of such bill or bills, to justify their action of debarring outgoing facilities of mobile of the complainant. This means nothing was due from the complainant in January, 2009, when his outgoing calls were debarred. By debarring the same, certainly opposite party would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice, which not only hindered professional work of the complainant, as an advocate, but also must have caused inconvenience, sufferance and agony to him.

5- During pendency of the complaint, on application of the complainant, interim order for restoration of the phone, was issued, which we are told having been complied by opposite party. Consequently, we need not pass any order qua restoration of mobile phone of the complainant. Opposite parties are guilty of not restoring outgoing facility of mobile of the complainant, despite the fact that he had served them notice Ex.C3, sent vide postal receipt Ex.C4 and then consequently, compelled him to come to the Fora. Conduct of the opposite party by debarring outgoing facility of mobile phone of complainant, as such, was wholly unjustified, arbitrary and amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

6- Resultantly, we allow this complaint and for causing harassment to the complainant, opposite party ordered to pay compensation of Rs.1000/- to the complainant, within 45 days of receipt of copy of order.

Dear Sir,

I want to bring to your kind notice that i bought my sony ericsson mobile
set from spice communication, Sector 14 Gurgaon on 26th November 2008. For
the last 10 days, i am facing a problem in charging the phone. The warranty
of the same is 1 year. I went to the service centre and to rectify the same
as it is under warranty. They told me that my cellphone billing was not done
properly. I went to the shop from where i bought the mobile and when i asked
them to make the bill again they didnt make and told me that they will not
make bill again. I told them that i will go to consumer court if they didnt
help me out. But they responded that *consumer court wouldnt do anything for
me.*

Requesting you to help me in this matter as i am really disappointed by the
behaviour of the shopkeepers.

Please find the details as below:
*My Name*: Amir Khan
*Contact no*.: 9990995111
*Shop Details*: Spice Communications, Outlet 1: Shop O. 112-113, Main
Market, Sector-14. Gurgaon

Regards
Amir Khan

Heihei, good article.

Fault/Issue in the handset : I bought Spice MI-410 on Oct 6 2011, thursday, from a Spice Hotspot (G3, Gateria Plot no.2 , Sector 12 , Dwarka, New Delhi - 75).Mobile - 91 9560099571

I had found the front camera blurry, as if there was water inside it.The shopkeeper refused to accept that there was a problem, and said that the quality was very good. On my repeated request, he agreed to show us another handset and indicate that this was the quality in all handsets.

After 3 days , he showed us a new phone , and the difference in the cameras was obvious. Now he finally agreed to the problem and said that he would "try to get it changed" by the next day.

The next day (Monday), I called him , he said there was no power at the service station so he could not get the handset replaced. So I called him again on Tuesday, now he said that there was no other faculty was available at his shop, hence he could not go .

This continued for every day and he gave me a new handset on Saturday, 9 days after I bought the phone.

Now as soon as he opened the box , I immediately showed him that there were many scratches on the screen and backside , indicating that it had been used. He did not agree and said that they were manufacturing defects . Then again I showed that the Battery calibration program, which starts every time a phone is opened for the first time , did not start up, again showing that this handset had been previously used. But the shopkeeper was adamant and ignored my statements.
On top of that, the light of the bottom buttons leaked out into the screen on this particular handset.

Now after 2 days , the handset stopped functioning properly. The screen would not register my touch properly and moved erratically even when I was not touching it . The problem was so unbearable that on saturday, October 22 2011 , I went to his shop and report the problem. But the shopkeeper refused to entertain my complaints.

I had to go to the Spice service center : TANEJA ELECTRONICS, WZ-66/1A, MONOHAR NAGAR, DELHI - 110052
They made us wait for 5 hours and then said that the handset would go to the company .I called them everyday but they kept postponing the problem to the next week .
On Nov 14, Childrens day they called me and gave the exact same phone and the problem even worse. In 30 seconds, the service center people took back the phone and told me to go to the company as they had no role anymore. I wrote to Shailendra Kumar, the head of DelhiNCR, on 15 Nov 2011. The next day he called and said that the phone would be replaced. But when we went again, on tuesday,22 Nov 2011 , they gave us the same phone . I called Shailendra and told him that I had recognized it was the same phone, he went back on his promise that phone would be replaced. that the phone would never be replaced, it would only be repaired, even . I tried to convince him that he would never buy a car at full price even if it had run a kilometer on road, but he cut the phone.

I have not even made a single phone call even though I bought it on 6 Oct 2011

Please get what you can done about this situation.