Order-14.
Date-15/07/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of complainant, in short, is that she was using the mobile no.9830260706 since a pretty long for over 5 years with a post paid connection provided by the OP. The complainant was paying regular bill provided by the service provider till the bill generated on 10-11-2015. The complainant visited Shillong from 07-10-2015 to 11-10-2015. On returning she got her monthly bill generated on 10-11-2015 for the period of 10-10-2015 to 09-11-2015 amounting to Rs.17,103-88 which includes International Roaming Charges of Rs.12,837/-. The complainant was shocked to see the very bill amount of Rs.12,837/- as she has not visited any Foreign Land during the period in question. She contacted with the OP’s Customer Care in Sarat Bose Road but no satisfactory reason was shown to her. Complainant, thereafter, visited personally at the office of the OP but OP paid no heed to her words. The OP has disconnection her mobile service. The complainant also visited the different offices for reconnection of service but to no good. Hence, this case.
OPs have contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case and the complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable either in fact or in law. It is stated that internet usage was done on the alleged number on 10-10-2015 as well as during the said period, the alleged number was availing the roaming area of “Bangladesh Grameen” and as a result the complainant was charged with International Roaming Internet Charges amounting to Rs.12,837/-. It is stated that North-East India is a sensitive boarder and in such a case, the complainant while travelling there accrued International Roaming Charges and network service provider like Vodafone had no control whatsoever, as a result, the complainant was billed on her actual usage with Grameen Phone Network of Bangladesh. The OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case
Point for Decision
- Whether the OP committed unfair trade practice in raising arbitrary bill?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Regarding the point of maintainability it can be said that the powers of telegraph authority neither have been vested nor are available to private telecom services provider and BSNL. Therefore, course to Sec.-7(b) in case of disputes between consumer and private service providers and even BSNL could not be available. Department of Telecommunications vide their letter No. 2-17/2013/policy-1 has informed that the Dist. Fora are competent to entertain consumer disputed involving telecom service providers and consumers. We think that the case in the present form is maintainable in Law.
The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice against the O.P. in raising bill to an amount of Rs.12,837/-.
We have scrutinized the documents filed from the respective sides. It appears that the complainant was using her mobile No.9830260706 with post paid connection provided by the Vodafone, the Service Provider. The complainant was also meeting the regular bill against her mobile connection. The controversy arose regarding the bill generated on 10-11-2015. It also appears that the complainant visited Shillong from 07-10-2015 to 11-10-2015. On return from Shillong she shift her bill generated on 10-11-2015 from the period 10-10-2015 to 09-11-2015 amounting to Rs.17,103-88 which included International Roaming Charges of Rs.12,837/-. The OPs have taken the plea that the complainant during her tour in Shillong was passing by the boarder of Bangladesh and for that reason the International Roaming Charges was charged on her bill. It appears from the documents on record that the complainant had never been to Bangladesh or any Foreign Land during the billing period 10-10-2015 to 19-10-2015. Seen the passport of the complainant also in this regard. Surprisingly enough the service provider has levied an amount of Rs.12,437/- under the head International Roaming Charges on the bill. O.P. has failed to provide any document that the complainant sent any request to it for availing International Roaming Charges on her Mobile or she was duly informed that her mobile connection was getting or availing or imbibing International Roaming Charge. It is argued from the side of the OPs that may be the flight in which she was travelling was passing by the boarder of the Bangladesh or may be Shillong is close to the Bangladesh Boarder received International Roaming. We cannot accept such an argument. Even if it is so, it is a fault or lacunae on the part of the service provider, a customer should not suffer for the laches of service provider or signal receiving agency or instrument. Complainant had never been to Bangladesh during the period in question. International Roaming Charge on her bill must be derogatory on her part. While she has never visited Bangladesh or any foreign country during the relevant period the bill shows that she must have been in Bangladesh or a foreign country. We are afraid we are not satisfied with the version of the OPs. We think that the OPs had drawn extra charges fraudulently to the tune of Rs.12,837/- under the head of “International Roaming Charges” on the bill.
It appears that OPs have not filed any survey report as to the tower location of complainant’s notice during the relevant period.
It appears that OPs have not followed the direction of TRAI. The billing accuracy is questionable.
We think that the grievance of the complainant is genuine and is required to be redressed.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
OPs are hereby directed to refund Rs.12,837/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- within one month from the date of this order.
OPs are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and harassment to the complainant within the stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution and in that case OPs will be liable to pay penalty at the rate ofRs.100/- per diem to be paid to this Forum till full and final payment.
