Order-14.
Date-21/12/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that OP1 is a mobile company and OP2 is a Manager-cum-Customer Service of OP1 dealing with post paid connection, billing etc. Complainant has been using the post paid mobile connection being No.9830929211 with the OP Company since long. At the instance of the sales executive of the OPs the complainant changed over to Bill Plan – Super Talk 199 from erstwhile Bill Plan – Red 899_individual. He was proposed in the new plan-free talk time 100 minutes (STD), free talk time 250 minutes(local), free SMS . 150 SMS (Local + STD) and free usage of 3GB Mobile 3G internet every month. But the rosy picture of the said Bill Plan faded when the complainant received a Bill being No.56830442 dated 15-04-2016 for the period of 15-03-2016 to 14-04-2016 amounting to Rs.12,178-88 with due date 03-05-2016. The complainant was shocked to see that excepting the free usage of mobile internet facility in the said post paid bill the OPs have added exorbitant mobile internet charges of Rs.9,477-73 for extra usage of mobile 3G internet of 2319.81MB (i.e. 2.3 GB) which is neither desirable nor acceptable. The complainant also found that the OPs have charged Rs.0.50 price approx per MB as 3G internet charge in earlier postponed bills and the OPs have charged exorbitant and unreasonable rate of interest i.e. Rs.4.00 approx per MB in the new bill. The complainant visited the customer care centre of OPs at Chandernagore, Srirampore, Dist-Hooghly and requested the concerned dealing person to resolve the issues but to no result. He was also shocked to find that the incoming and outgoing facility of the said mobile connection was arbitrarily stopped by the OPs in all aspects. The complainant alleges that the OPs have not solved the problems or communicated with him to solve the problem. The complainant has alleged gross negligence and deficiency of service, misrepresentation, unfair trade practice against the OPs. Hence, this case.
OPs have contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in fact or in law and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint. It is stated that the instant complaint has been filed with an oblique motive of extorting money from the OPs without any legitimate basis. It is denied that there has been deficiency in service on the part of the OPs or the OPs practiced unfair trade. It is stated that since June, 2005 the complainant is using the service of OP1. He was the user of the post paid service. The complainant used Red 899 Individual Plan till 15-02-2016. On or about 14-02-2016 complainant called on the customer care of OP1 and requested for a change of his tariff plan. As per the requirement he was explained the terms of various plans offer by the OP1 and he opted for the Super Talk 199 Plan on 15-02-2016. The complainant called again Customer Care for activation of data pack of 2GB 3G data on his mobile and as per service request no.//155658320 which was duly activated. On 15-03-2016 the complainant had activated an Add-On Plan of 1GB on his mobile connection as per his request no.//163260798 by self USSD process.
The complainant was issued a bill of Rs.12,178-88 being no.56830442 for the period 15-03-2016 to 14-04-2016. The complainant raised a dispute regarding the amount of the bill and has filed the instant complaint. It is stated that the complainant has been charged by the OPs strictly in terms of the plan availed by the complainant and there is no defect in the bill for any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- 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. Bar u/s.7B could have applied and 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 next 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 bills?
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of Vodafone Bill dated 15-04-2016, Xerox copy of itemized call on daily basis for the period 15-03-2016 to 14-04-2016 and other documents on record.
It appears complainant had initially opted for Bill Plan Red 899 individual plan and was using the same till 15-02-2016. The complainant changed over to Super Talk 199 plan as per service request no.15556734. It also appears that the complainant called the customer care executive for data pack of 2GB 3G data on his phone as per service request no.155658320 which was duly activated. It also appears that on 05-03-2016 the complainant had activated an Add-On Plan of 1GB on his connection as per service request no.//163260798 by self-USSD process. We find as per the said bill the total consumption of the complainant was 5.26 GB of data for the relative period. Accordingly we also find that in terms of the plan the complainant had been charged Rs.9477.73 against the additional data usage of 2319.81MB (2.26 GB) at the rate of4p/10KB, since the very usage limit as per the Plan was 3GB (3072.00MB). We find that the complainant opted for the Super Talk 199 Plan on his own volition. In view of the binding agreement and conditions, the plea of the complainant that he has no knowledge of rate is unacceptable and such plea does not sustain. We also find itemized bill with date filed from the side of the OP with regard to the usage of the mobile services by the complainant and the mathematical calculation of the charges was derived at basing upon the agreed tariff plan, as per the binding contract.
The only point of controversy in this case is the tariff rate. The complainant was charged in terms of the plan availed and we think that bill cannot be disputed by the complainant at this stage. The rate of tariff is a contractual agreement between the complainant and the service provider, i.e., OP. After having obtained the connection willingly and having used the services, the complainant cannot decline to pay for the same. We find that the complainant has been charged by the OP strictly in terms of the plan availed by the complainant. We do not find deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
In result, the instant case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest.
No order as to cost.
