Date of Filing – 26.08.2016

Date of Hearing – 03.07.2017

            The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Party i.e. Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. to assail the Order No.12 dated 25.07.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 138/2016.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Respondent Sri Soumen Das under Section 12 of the Act ex parte with the direction upon the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost within one month from date otherwise OP will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.100/- per diem.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint asserting that he is a subscriber of the opposite party in respect of a mobile being No.9830056967 on a post-paid plan for about 15 years and being a diligent customer is going on paying bills month by month comes at around Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.  On 26.11.2015 he went to Bangladesh and returned on 28.11.2015 and on that occasion, the international roaming was activated.  On returning from Bangladesh on 28.11.2015, the complainant duly deactivated the international roaming services and made a payment of Rs.4,000/- on 30.11.2015.  Thereafter, the outstanding dues were shown to be standing at Rs.15,965/- by an SMS from Vodafone.  Subsequently, on 01.12.2015 the complainant received an SMS that his total usage is Rs.19,885/-.  Subsequently, on 02.12.2015 the complainant received another SMS stating that his total usage stands Rs.34,188/-.  Immediately, complainant sent a mail protesting the same.  However, on account of loosing communication with his business contacts, complainant payout such a huge amount.  Therefore, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for several reliefs including compensation of Rs.21,595.30 p for undue charges levied, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony etc.

          The appellant being OP by filing a written version has stated that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.  The opposite party has stated that the complainant was using the international roaming facility in Bangladesh and the roaming data charges raised by the Bangladesh partner of them has been passed on to the complainant.  The OP submits that the smart phone with application software and data connectivity, use data continuously in ordinary day to day activities results in consequent billing.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned final order allowed the complaint with the directions upon the opposite party as indicated above.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the opposite party has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and also scrutinised the materials on record.

          At the outset, it would be pertinent to record that the scheme of the Act indicates that the main objective is to provide for better protection of the interests of the Consumer.  To achieve that purpose, a cheaper, easier, expeditious and effective redressal mechanism is provided in the Act.  Therefore, in the interest of the consumers, the provisions of the Act have to be given broad and positive construction.  Section 3 of the Act provides that the remedy under the Act is in addition and not in derogation of any other provisions of law.  

          Mr. Abhik Kumar Das, Ld. Advocate for the Appellant seriously challenged the maintainability of the proceeding in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case reported in (2009) 8 SCC 481 ( General Manager, Telecom – Vs. – M. Krishnan & Anr.).  But analysing the situation, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in MA/204/2014 in RP/1228/2013 (Bharti Hexacom Ltd. – Vs. – Komal Prakash & Anr.) has observed that the decision involved therein a dispute between Department of Telecommunications (DoT) which was a ‘Telegraph Authority’ under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider prior to hiving off telecom services into a separate company, viz. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL).  However, as the powers of a telegraph authority are now not vested in the private telecom providers, Section 7B of the Telegraph Act will have no application and the Forums constituted under the Act are competent to entertain the dispute the disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.

          Therefore, the question of maintainability of the proceeding, raised by the appellant has rightly been turned down by the Ld. District Forum. 

          Coming to the merits of the case, it would reveal that the respondent visited Bangladesh on 26.11.2015 and returned on 28.11.2015.  It is true that on the request of the Respondent, the international roaming was activated on 26.11.2015 and subsequently, it was deactivated on 28.11.2015 when the respondent returned to India.

          The record reveals that the respondent Company raised a bill for the period of 21.11.2015 to 20.12.2015 showing usage of incoming calls, outgoing calls as well as mobile used by the complainant while on international roaming and it is evident that the respondent was charged with Rs.21,595.31 P.  The appellant took a plea that they have to pay the required pay to the local network service provider, used by the customer in Bangladesh based on his usage.  It has also been stated that for international roaming usage, operators from other countries do not send the billing on a real time basis.  The plea taken by the respondent does not appear to be acceptable.  The Ld. District Forum has rightly observed that the respondent has paid the bills promptly and diligently including the disputed bill but the appellant has not been able to justify in allowing their international roaming partner for data usage without the knowledge and consent of the respondent. In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum has rightly came to a conclusion that there was a dearth of service on the part of opposite party.

          Considering the above, it appears to me that the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in assessing the amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and as such the said order should not be interfered with.

          Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

          The impugned Order is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II for information.