Order-20.
Date-21/12/2015.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant took the SIM being No.9830611722 from the OP1 sometime in the year 2009 -10 as a prepaid SIM and complainant has been using the SIM for the personal use till the middle of 2013 as prepaid number in his own mobile phone and during the use of prepaid SIM No.9830611722 number of times there were wrong deductions from his account but every time he was successful in receiving back those wrongly deducted amount either through OP1 or OP2. However, he had to run up and down to their offices number of times to receive back those wrongly deducted amount for no fault on his part. In the middle of 2013 complainant’s daughter Ms. Oindrila Chowdhury started staying at Palta, North 24 Pgs. after getting some employment there and as she had no mobile connection in her name at that point of time he had lent his mobile temporarily to his daughter for her use and at that point of time his daughter was contacted by the representative of M/s. Vodafone who offered the Net connection in 2G Scheme as post-paid number by giving many false promises of different benefits at a very low cost and converted the same cell number in her name without taking any consent from the complainant which incident is a clear case of deficiency of service besides attracting other criminal liabilities.
As promised by M/s. Vodafone, as it is evident from the Bills of the said Cell number in November, 2013 and June 2014 wherein the bills are within the range of Rs.530/- to Rs.700/- and payment of these bills were duly received by OP1 on 18-11-2013 and 23-06-2014 respectively. But it was a matter of great shock and surprise when suddenly the bill of this Cell number was increased to more than Rs.5,000/- in July-August, 2014 and the same was intimated to complainant no.2 without giving the details of call list and also without giving any justification thereof for such exorbitant sudden hike in the bill and when complainant 1 went to the office of OP1 to enquire into this matter he was denied access to this information on the plea that the concerned bill was in the name of complainant no.2 when they were informed about the foul play made by them for conversation of the name from complainant no.1 and 2 then they informed verbally that this was because of the fact that the said scheme has again been converte4d to 3G Scheme for which the Tariff has increased so much and the complainant would like to draw the kind attention to the Forum that this unilateral conversion from 2G to 3G was done by M/s. Vodafone without any valid consent of the complainant 2 which is again a glaring example of deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the above service and foul play of M/s. Vodafone, the complainant no.2 had prepared a written complaint on 18-08-2014, although the OP1 initially refused to accept such written complaint, but Mr. Soudipto one of the employees of OP1 had received it at last on compulsion and recorded the receipt no. as SR#1569898948 but till date even after filing of this complaint they have not ventilated the matter not replied and by that act they have harassed the complainant and for such thing unfair trade practice has been practiced and so complainant filed this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand, OP M/s. Vodafone East by filing written statement submitted that circular and instructions issued by the Board are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under the respective statues and it is binding upon the complainant equally. Further it is submitted that as on date of filing the case the complainant is not a consumer of the answering OP and assuming but not admitting, if the complainant wanted to claim any alleged compensation he should have approached the Civil Court and paid stamp duty for the claim of Rs.70,000/- etc. to establish his case for claiming the aforesaid amount.
Further complainant is not a subscriber of the OP hence the allegation as made by the complainant as user is totally denied and the allegation with regard to regular monthly bills or average usage are not correct because the bills are raised by the OP based on the actual usage on monthly basis and not on average usage as alleged by the complainant in respect of usage details provided by the complainant and further in the present matter also OP provided a detailed itemized invoice (charged connections) to the complainant.
It is further mentioned that post giving necessary discounts the complainant was charged Rs.4,963-83/- for data usage and the date browsing and downloading any application is only possible when handset software configuration, data connectivity ad respective applications are all in line and on successful data transfer and download customer gets billed by the mobile service provider, apart from the aforesaid data usage the monthly charges, messaging charges, conference call charges and voice call charges were also imposed to this mobile number as per the usage by the complainant. So complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,575-79/- along with usage charges, late payment charges and monthly rentals for the month of September-October, 2014.
Moreover, complainant has not raised any dispute whatsoever up to post December, 2014 for which the mobile connection was permanently deactivated and as per the telecom process any mobile number which was deactivated could be allotted as a fresh number to any new party after completion of 90 days period. Hence as per process the number strikes out and stands issued to a new customer so the mobile number is being used by some other customer.
In spite of specific undertaking provided by the customer and in spite of repeated collection calls and intimations made by the OP the customer has failed to clear the genuine outstanding so the customer has nothing to blame for which that alleged opportunity was given to the customer but he is a defaulter which is proved and already OP took legal step to recover the outstanding amount intimation to said dispute but customer was not at all agree to settle the dispute with a mala fide intention but the entire allegation is false, fabricated and baseless having no affidavit and for which the present complaint is not maintainable and the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with Reasons
On proper consideration of the complaint and the written version and also considering the complainant’s own admission it is found that complainant no doubt took a mobile phone being no. 9830611722 initially. Thereafter, as per complainant’s own admission that was transferred in the name of her daughter Oindrila and from the receipt it is found that complainant’s daughter submitted such application for transfer with consent of her father and thereafter, it is transferred in the name of complainant no.2. Further it is found that complainant no.2 had been using the said mobile after receiving monthly bill one after another but ultimately it was not paid for which the outstanding amount became Rs.5,063-83. However, it is found that collection calls were made to remind the customer to make the payment well within the timeline to enjoy uninterrupted services and usage details were furnished to the customer month by month conveniently to the customer and complainant received the same which is proved from the fact. Complainant has filed part of the invoice but actual bill sent by the OP is not filed but from the copy of the details filed by the OP it is found that usage details are tagged with each bill and that was not submitted by the complainant but it is admitted position is that monthly by monthly receipts and bills were sent along with usage details but usage details are not submitted along with the complaint and complainant submitted that usage details are not served but that is not correct. In view of the fact complainant are well aware that she used the usages in so many manners by using different usages as it is evident from the usage details.
Another factor is that complainant no.1 tried to convince that without his consent the number was transferred to the name of his daughter is completely unbelievable in view of the fact his daughter submitted application for transfer with consent of his father thereafter it is denied that his daughter complainant no.2 had been enjoying the same and usage same month by month and when the bill was increased and was used by the complainant though the bill received for said scheme so apparently there is no materials to prove that billing was uncalled for or exorbitant in nature. Apart from usage data charges monthly charges, messaging charges, conference call charges and voice call charges were also imposed to the mobile number as per usage by the complainant. it is also proved that for recovery of the outstanding bill complainant submitted the same to Lok Adalat with an intention to settle the dispute but the customer is not at all desired to settle the dispute for which the same could not be disposed of in the Lok Adalat but question of deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant is not all proved but it is a billing dispute but after considering the materials we are convinced that there is no ground to believe that exorbitant billing under the name of the complainant is raised but we have gathered that now the said SIM number allotted to some other persons and at present complainants are not the customer of the OP so we are convinced that outstanding bill amount is Rs.4,963-83 and complainant is liable to pay that amount not any other amount. In view of the fact that the said SIM had already been allotted to some other person and since August, 2014 complainant are not using the same. So, further charges cannot be assessed by the OPs and except a sum of Rs.4,963-83 complainant is not liable to pay any other amount to the OP and invariably complainant shall have to pay the same and the matter shall be treated as finally disposed of and OPs shall have no right to get further amount except Rs.4,963-83 from the complainant but on overall evaluation of the materials on record we have gathered that complainant otherwise failed to prove any other charges, exorbitant bill or any other allegations against OP and without any foundation. In the result the complaint succeeds in part.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest with a cost of Rs.2,000/- against the OPs.
Complainant to pay Rs.4,963-80 to the OPs and OPs shall have to receive it and accordingly on payment the matter dispute shall be treated as finally settled but OPs for their no right to demand further any amount except Rs.4,963-83 when the complainants are not the consumer since August, 2014 when that SIM had been allotted to some other persons.
Parties to comply the order and OPs are directed to be more careful in this respect of this case and shall not have to harass the complainant any means whatsoever.
