Order-17.
Date-05/01/2017.
Shri Kamal Dae, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he had a prepaid Mobile No.9051063311. He was captivated of the Sales Executive of OP1 for change over to post paid connection as the Bill Plan is very much beneficial and favourable and that the complainant would get post services and more facilities. The complainant was also impressed by the proposed bill plan, particularly about the very usage of 1GB mobile internet every month at the monthly charges of Rs.499/-. The complainant gave consent to change his prepaid connection to postpaid connection. But the complainant became shocked to receive that a bill being no.37749862 dated 10-01-2016 for the period 10-12-2015 to 19-01-2016 amounting to Rs.2137.34 with due date 28-01-2016. It is also alleged that the OPs accepting the free usage of 1GB mobile internet facility have willfully added exorbitant mobile internet charges of Rs.1414.02 for extra usage of mobile internet, merely of 345.38 MB which is neither desirable nor acceptable. The complainant on several occasions visited the customer care centre of the OP1 at Chandernagore and also at Srirampore, Dist-Hooghly and requested the concerned dealing person to solve the issues but to no result. Moreover, the complainant was shocked after the expiry of the due date of the said bill that is on 28-01-2016, that the incoming and outgoing facilities of the said mobile connection were arbitrarily stopped by the OPs. It is also stated that the complainant had been enrolled with the banking facilities in Allahabad Bank, Rishra Branch and also with the LPG connection with Indane and due to such arbitrary connection on the part of the OPs the complainant was completely disabled to avail the essential facilities. The complainant also wrote a letter dated 23-02-2016 to the OPs for redressal but to no result. Complainant also caused service of legal notice upon the OP but no reply was made from the side of the OP. Complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. Hence, this case.
OPs have filed written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable before Consumer Fora and is barred u/s.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is stated that the OPs preserve the outgoing call details, SMS and the data usage in a fully computerized advance software. It is stated that the bill was prepared and provided to the complainant according to the usage charges. It is stated that the OP had come to the Vodafone Store and had demanded that the charges for data usage beyond the free 1GB data be exonerated but OP was unable to do so because it was not possible for the OP to waive the charge when it is alleged by the complainant that the data usage was wrongly charged. The complainant was advised to make the payment of bill but the complainant did not pay the bill. It is denied that OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant. It is also denied that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice. The answering OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Ld. Lawyer appearing for the side of the OP has argued that the Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the case in its present form. Regarding maintainability we say that the power of telephone authority is not vested or available to private telecom providers including BSNL. The Director General of Post and Telegraph is the Telegraph Authority as envisaged in Section 3 under Clause 6 of the Telegraph Act. The matter has also been dealt with in details in a decision by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in W.P.(c) 8285/2010 and C.M. No.21319/2010, date of decision 06-02-2012 we do not think that Section 7B of Indian Telegraph is applicable because the power of Telegraph Authority is not vested or available to private Telecom Service providers including BSNL and Telegraph Authority means the Director General of Posts and Telegraph. The recourse to Section 7B in case of disputes between consumers and private service providers and BSNL would not be available. But u/s.7B could have applied had the dispute arisen between the telegraph communication authority which OP is not. The consumer complaint accordingly is very well maintainable before the District Consumer Forum.
The question is whether the OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainant? Or whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice in raising bill in question?
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of the Vodafone Bills i.e. 10-12-2016, Xerox copy of usage details, Xerox copy of itemized call for the bill period 10-12-2015 to 09-01-2016 and other documents on record.
It appears that the complainant had initially prepaid mobile connection on his mobile no.9051063311. Subsequently, he switched over to post paid connection. We also find that the OP has filed in this case itemized bill which includes outgoing call record outgoing SMS and data usage charges. We also find that the complainant was provided a detailed bill from the side of the OP. The itemized bill reflects with regard to call charges and the SMS charges. The complainant in filing this case has disputed the data usage charges but we find that as per the complaint of the complainant the complainant was eligible to use 1024 MB data as free usage within one month billing cycle. In the present cycle the complainant had used 1369.38 MB as data usage and therefore the excess of 345.38 MB data usage was charged in the bill beyond the free of usage quota. We find that the charge of Rs.1414.02 was raised for the extra data usage made by the complainant. So, we find no substance in the allegation of the complainant that the data usage was wrongly charged. We also find that as the complainant failed to make the payment of the bill, the outgoing facilities as such were barred. We think that OPs had raised a proper bill basing on data usage and charges. Moreover we know that outgoing call details, SMS and the data usage are preserved in a fully computerized advance software where human intervention is not possible. We think that the present complaint of the complainant is not sustainable. Complainant was charged in terms of the data usage and we think that the bill cannot be said to be exorbitant, imaginary having no basis. We find that the complainant has been charged by the OP strictly in terms of the plan / tariff availed by the complainant we do not find any deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
In result, the instant case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
We make no order as to cost.
