Complaint No. 505/15.7.2009.

Date of order: 12.11.2009.

Jatinder Kumar Kakkar son of late Sh. Faqir Chand Kakkar, resident of H. No.773, Street No.4, near Cheema Chowk, Janakpuri, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)
Vs.
1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Aravali Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-70 through its Managing Director/Chairman/authorised signatory.

2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab -160055.

(Opposite parties)

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

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh.Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. J.S. Bindra Advocate for opposite parties.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Grievance of the complainant, in this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection act, 1986, is against demand of Rs. 7980.27p raised by the opposite party against his mobile connection bearing no. 98721-47406.

2. It is pleaded by the complainant that he had taken this mobile connection from the opposite party for more than 4-5 years and never crossed credit limit of his mobile. In May, 2009, on receiving SMS from opposite party, availed internet connection with unlimited GPRS with voice @ Rs.500/- per month on 9.6.2009. After installation of internet connection, complainant never used the same, as was not knowing how to use the internet on phone. Then on 11.6.2009, received message on his mobile that unbilled amount of the connection is Rs.2200/- and it has crossed credit limit of Rs.1700/-. Then complainant requested opposite party to provide him details qua this heavy amount claimed and also sought reason that if the limit was crossed, why facility was not withdrawn. Thereafter started receiving message on mobile that his unbilled amount is increasing and then contacted Customer Care of opposite party enquiring reason of increase in unbilled amount. They assured him to decrease unused amount, after getting details of the billed amount to be calculated. Again contacted customer care of opposite party who on 7.7.2009 intimated that internet connection of the complainant has been used on two ISD numbers 25260955555 and 41773111709 and his billed amount was raised to Rs. 7980.27p. Then contacted opposite party who told that his internet connection had been hacked by some unknown persons who are using the same continuously. They advised complainant to install new software in his mobile, which he did on 7.7.2009. Matter was also reported to higher authorities of opposite party, but they failed to give satisfactory reply. Hence, report was made with the police. Therefore, claimed that demand of Rs. 7980.27p raised by the opposite party in the bill dated 5.6.09 to 4.7.2009 is illegal, arbitrary, void and liable to be set aside.

3. Opposite party-Bharti Airtel Ltd. contested the complaint by filing the reply and pleaded that they have installed one of the best billing software developed by M/s Comverse, Inc., 100 Quabnnapowitt Parkway, Wakefield, MA, USA, which is world’s leading provider of software and systems enabling network based messaging and content valued added services, prepaid, postpaid and converged billing, mobile advertising and IP communications. Complainant has been charged for the usage. The billing happens in the computerized billing system of the opposite party only when Voice Service/SMS/VAS is used by the customer. Further pleaded that on receipt of complaint from the complainant, it was investigated by the concerned department of the opposite party and no error was found in the bill dated 6.7.2009. Claimed that complainant has not approached the Fora with clean hands and he is not entitled for any relief. Complaint being false, frivolous deserves dismissal. Further pleaded that complainant under rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules is to pay the user charges, failing which connection liable to be disconnected. They pleaded that credit limit is not sole discretion of opposite party, as it was only an indictor of monthly usage by the customer. In case of exceeding monthly usage, customer is required to pay for the calls or services obtained beyond such limit. Complainant himself used the phone by using ISD and made false allegation of hacking.

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

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

6. Complainant in support of his allegations placed reliance on his own affidavit Ex.CW1. He also relied on bill Ex.C.1 to C5 of his mobile phone issued by the opposite party. No doubt, in the bills his limit is mentioned of Rs.1700/-. His credit limit is Rs.1700/- as is apparent from the bills Ex. C2 dated 6.3.2009, C.3 dated 6.4.2009, C.4 dated 4.5.2009 and C.5 dated 4.7.2009. But bill Ex.C.5 is for Rs.7985.04p. Therefore, it made the complainant to argue that when complainant exceeded credit limit of Rs.1700/-, opposite party would have disconnected his connection. By not doing so, would mean that they themselves misused the mobile phone. However, we can not subscribe to such a view. As if a customer exceeds credit limit, then he lends himself at the mercy of the service provider, who in their option may snatch facility of the mobile phone by barring incoming or outgoing facility, to compel him not to increase such a limit. If they did not do so, it can not be said that they would be guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice. By own courtsy, may permit a subscriber to exceed credit limit. Limit is only fixed by the operator to watch their financial interest.

7. The main contention now of the complainant is that he had taken internet connection on his mobile phone from the opposite party on 9.6.2009, which he got disconnected and removed on 11.6.09 as was not knowing how to use internet on his mobile. After taking that internet connection, he says that his number was hacked by somebody and since 9.7.2009 had been using, after hacking his number, to call two numbers in the foreign country by using his ISD. Details of ISD number have been mentioned in the bill Ex.C.5.

8. Complainant claimed that he never made those calls as his number was hacked. There may be truth in his saying so. But we are sorry to say that such like question of fraud and cheating are beyond our jurisdiction to be decided. As these questions require greater piece of evidence, including providing chance to the parties to cross-examine witnesses of each other. Further more, we have no material with us in this summary enquiry to adjudge whether mobile of the complainant was hacked on the basis of his internet identity and somebody used his internet connection and on his phone made unauthorized calls.

9. Though system of opposite party for sending bills of calls to the customers is computerized, which can not be tampered with. No doubt, ISD calls on phone of the complainant have repeatedly been made w.e.f. 9.6.2009, when the complainant claimed having obtained internet connection, which he surrendered on 11.76.2009. His claim is that prior to taking such connection, had never made any such calls on those numbers. But such a matter, we are sorry to say that we are not able to decide, as matter of hacking of his internet connection deserve to be proved thoroughly.

10. Therefore, we are of the view that this is not proper Forum to decide the controversy raised by the complainant in this complaint. Hence, the same is dismissed. This order shall not prevent complainant from getting the matter decided from any other court of competent jurisdiction or authority competent to decide allegations of hacking of his mobile/internet connection. Parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.