Order-15.
Date-08/07/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant in short is that he is an old postpaid customer under the OP and used mobile No.9830056735 for more than 10 years. On 21-10-2015 the complainant received a SMS for payment of Rs.3506.73 towards bill for the period from 21-09-2015 to 20-10-2015 and the due date of the said bill was 08-11-2015. The complainant paid the said bill. On 23/10/2015 the complainant along with her family went to Srilankaand returned on 28-10-2015. On returning the complainant was surprised to note that a fresh SMS in respect of the referred cell number intimating that the credit limit of Rs.13500/- has crossed and the complainant need to make immediate payment of Rs.33273/-. The outgoing calls were also barred from the said mobile number. The O.P. party on enquiry could not provide any reason for the said SMS amount and informed the complainant that during the stay in Srilanka the complainant have made a data usage, as result of which the said amount of Rs.33273/- has been generated. It is alleged by the complainant that he stopped the data services during his visit to Srilanka and he is unaware about the data usage. It is also alleged that the maximum limit of the referred mobile number was of Rs.13,500/- and the OP disconnected outgoing calls and data services only when the amount of due has reached to Rs.33273/-. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP to restore the outgoing call facility but no action was taken by the O.P. party. Finally on 16-11-2015 the complainant made full and final payment of Rs.39,500/- tothe OP for restoring the outgoing calls. It is alleged that the complainant has suffered a lot due to arbitrary act of the O.P. Hence this case.
O.P. in filing W.V. has contested the case contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable in this Forum. It is alleged that the present complaint is not maintainable in the light of provision u/s.7(b) of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is stated that the detailed invoice dated 17-11-2015 which already has been supplied to the complainant clearly shows usage by way of incoming and outgoing calls and data usage behind such massive billing. It is alleged that during the bill period from 21-10-2015 to 16-11-2015 incoming calls outgoing calls as well as mobile internet were done through the alleged mobile number along with international roaming charges. As a result the complainant was charged Rs.47056-84. The complainant has suppressed the material fact just to harass the O.P. It is alleged that the complainant did not clear the outstanding amount within the time limit and for which the mobile connection is deactivated.
Points for Decision
Whether the OP committed unfair trade practice in raising arbitrary bill?
Decision with Reasons
Regarding the point of maintainability it can be said that the powers of telegraph authority neither have been tested 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.39500/-.
We have scrutinized the documents filed from the respective sides. It is alleged by the complainant that he returned back from vacation tour to Srilanka on 28/10/2015 morning and was surprised to receive fresh SMS in his cell that outstanding balance for the month of October-2015 is revised to Rs.33273/- and found outgoing calls are also stopped on the referred mobile number.
It is argued from the side of the O.P. that the complainant made data usage which cost around Rs.1000/- per MB and for that reason the mobile bill has reached to above Rs.35000/-. Perused the annexurres filed from the side of O.P. It appears that the credit limit in respect of the referred cell number is of Rs.13500/-. It is curious to note that the complainant was not informed that the credit limit of Rs.13500/- has crossed. It is categorically asserted from the side of the complainant that the complainant during her stay in Srilanka has not made data usage and stopped the data services available on the referred mobile. O.P. has failed to provide any document that the complainant sent any request to it for availing of data services abroad or to enhance the credit limit on 13500/-. The O.P. has also failed to provide any document regarding the tower location of referred cell number or to show the data usage by the complainant during her vacation tour in Srilanka. The bill as submitted by way of annexure by the O.P. does not contain either the tower location of the cell phone of the complainant or time and period of data usage from the Server. No Server report is filed in support of such alleged bill. It appears that the Dynamic Credit limit of the referred cell phone is Rs.13500/-. It is curious to note that the O.P. enhance such credit limit to Rs.39500/- without being asked for the same by the complainant. We do not find any transparency in the so called bill under challenge. Complainant has intimated that the credit limit of Rs.13500/- has crossed. We are constrained to hold that the O.P. is guilty of unfair trade practice. We think that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.39500/-.
In the result, the complaint succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.
O.P. is hereby directed to refund Rs.39500/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.5000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution and in that case O.P. will be liable to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per diem to be paid to this Forum till full and final payment.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order towards compensation.
