Order-14.

Date-17/02/2017.

       Shri Kamal De, President.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

The Complainant’s case in short is that he is the subscriber of mobile connection no. 9830596492 provided by the OPs. The Complainant has opted for a monthly rental of Rs.199/- and his normal monthly bill was much below Rs.1,500/- with only exception in December,2015, it was billed for Rs.2,168.89, in May, 2016 when it was billed for Rs.2090/- and on both  the occasions the petitioner travelled  out of station for a long vacation. Recently, the Complainant travelled to Dhaka in Bangladesh by flight in the evening on 30.04.2016 and came back by Flight on 05.05.2016. The Complainant only asked for international roaming facility. However, though initially it was noticed that he could communicate through his mobile at his residence at Salt Lake in India,however, such facility has been disconnected by the OPs from 02.05.2016, it is alleged that OPs has raised a bill on 01.06.2016 for the billing from 01.05.2016 to 31.05.2016 for Rs.1,11,432/-, which includes monthly charge of Rs.8,349/- and usage Rs.95,949/- together with service tax of Rs.14,524/- etc. Soon after the receipt of the aforesaid erroneous bill, the matter was referred to the OPs through letter dated 06.06.2016 with a request to make necessary connection of the said Bill dated 01.06.2016 but to no good.

It is also alleged that the men and agent of the OPs are constantly pursuing for payment of such erroneous bill over telephone as well as by sending mails. It is stated that the payment for charges up to 30^th April, 2016 has already been paid and nothing due on that account and the bill is erroneous one. It is also stated that the mobile service connection was disconnected with effect from 02.05.2016 and is not restored. Hence this case.

OP No. 1 and 2 have contested the case in filing w.v. contending inter alia that the complaint case is not maintainable in law or in fact.

It is alleged that the Complainant availed monthly rental plan of Rs.199/- along with mobile internet rental plan of Rs.650/- which provides 3 GB data on 3G connection for 30 days and the Complainant has continued the same. It is also stated that international roaming service was very much active in his account since 01.01.2014 when he obtained alleged connection. The date of disconnection i.e. on 02.05.2016 is denied by the OP. It is stated that the alleged disconnection was suspended on 30.06.2016 due to nonpayment bills and permanently deactivated on 29.09.2016. It is stated that during the time the connection was very much in use and which resulted into the charges amounting to  Rs.1.13.522.89. It is also stated that the Complainant flew to Bangladesh in the evening of 30.04.2016 and that in the initial point of time he made communications through the alleged connection is an admitted fact. It is also stated that the invoice dated 01.06.2016 proves the huge usage of mobile internet upon the alleged connection since 9.37 PM of 30.04.2016 to 01. 05.2016which resulted into  the bill amounting to Rs.89,080.00. It is also alleged that the Complainant has not submitted any document which shows his non usage of mobile internet while on international roaming during such period. It is stated that there was no malintention on the part of OPs. It is denied that the OP resorted to raise any inflated bills as alleged. It is stated that the present case is misconceived and is false, and filed for ulterior motive or avoiding payment of genuine service.This OP is prayed for dismissal of the case.

Point for Decision

1)         Whether OPs are deficient in rendering services to the Complainant?

2)         Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?           

Decision with Reasons

We have perused the documents on record i.e. photocopy of Vodafone Bills dated 01.05.2016 for period from 01.05.2016 to 30.05.2016, dated 01.06.2016, item-wise calls  for Bill period 01.05.2016 to 31.05.2016,  Photocopy of Legal notice.

            It appears that the Complainant had visited Dhaka in Bangladesh by Air India Flight in the evening of 30.04.2016 and come back on 05.05.2016. It also appears that the Complainant never asked  for international roaming facilities. The Complainant could communicate through his mobile to his residence at Salt Lake in India initially and such facility was disconnected from the next date i.e on 1^st May, 2016. He could not use the mobile thereafter. It also appears from the Bills on record that he was opted for the monthly rental of Rs.199/- and his normal monthly Bills were much below Rs.1,500/- with only exception in December,2015 when it was billed for Rs.2,168.89 and May-2016 for Rs.2090/- and dynamic credit limit as we find  was at Rs.15,600/- as mentioned in the impugned bill.                          

It appears that the Bill for the billing period from 01.05.2016 to 31.05.2016 is Rs.1.,11,432/-. On scrutiny of detail of the call charges, we find that call rate for mobile international roaming mobile phone call incoming is Rs.11.00 per second and outgoing rate is Rs.46.00 per second. The rate of mobile international roaming is Rs.58.13 per MB.

            On scrutiny of the details of the charges it appears that all the charges for one day usage on 1^st May,2016  and thereafter the mobile connection  was blocked. The impugned bill does not show any use of the mobile connection for subsequent period of the month. It appears that on 01.05.2016 mobile internet was switched on at 15.22.23. Time of internet is shown as 15.22.23 on 01.05.2016, but the usage period is not mentioned. Again we find that the mobile internet was opened on 01.05.2016 at 15-33-17. It will be apparent from the details of the usage made annexed with the Bill and on 01.05.2016 at 15.22.23 raised an amount of Rs.82,861.99 was charged. Such huge amount was practically impossible phenomenon. Moreover, we find that the bills for last 3 months of February, March and April were amounting to Rs.1,020/-, Rs.1,008 and Rs. 1170/- respectively. We find that the entire charges were claimed for only one day i.e. 01.05.2016 for 11 minutes at best and as after that date, wethink connection was blocked by the OP parties. We think that according to the impugned Bill usage of 1,50,655 KB on 01.05.2016 at 15.22.23 which appears to be a impossible phenomenon. We think that alleged impugned Bill is erroneous and the Complainant can not be asked to pay the said fabulous   Bill.

            In result the case merit success.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.

The OPs are directed to rectify the erroneous bill within one month from the date of this order apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

OPs are also prohibited to disturb the Complainant in any manner in regard to collection of such erroneous bill.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage  at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.