Shri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.

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

The facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. in respect of Mobile No.9830096212 and O.P.-4 is the service provider. O.Ps.-1 to 3 are the Vice President, General Manager and Manager of Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. The Vodafone company offered an option in the Internet mentioning “Now enjoy 4G service in Singapore, enjoy unlimited data and calls in Singapore with i-roam free for Rs.2,875/- for seven days” and to attract such offer the complainant requested his agent to activate the said plan. The O.Ps. activated the said plan on 04/06/2017 and the complainant received SMS from Vodafone to that effect during stay at Singapore. The aforesaid plan supposed to continue till the mid-night of 10/06/2017 but the O.Ps. deactivated the roaming plan by sending SMS in the morning of 10/06/2017. Finding no other alternative, complainant immediately requested the O.Ps. for extension of the package through SMS from Singapore at about 9-00 AM. The O.Ps. dishonestly charged Rs.65,000/- within a span of 3 hours on 10/06/2017 for data usages. The mobile phone connection of the complainant was disconnected by the O.Ps on 22/06/2017 and ultimately they restored the connection. Again on 01/07/2017 the O.Ps. disconnected the mobile connection and the complainant was compelled to deposit Rs.50,000/- to the O.Ps. for reconnection of the mobile phone. Such activities of the O.Ps. tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the consumer complaint.

The O.P.-4 has contested the case by filing W.V. contending inter alia that the consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. That the Consumer Forum have no jurisdiction to entertain the instant consumer dispute and such dispute falls within the jurisdiction of Telecom Regulatory Authority  of India(TRAI). The specific case of the answering O.P. is that the complainant was a customer under them and also used Vodafone connection being Mobile No. 9830096212. The plan subscribed by the complainant was Plan Red 1299. In the month of June, 2017 complainant had been to Singapore  for which he activated international roaming services. International roaming service is not an automatic facility unlike national roaming and has to be specially activated so as to get access to incoming and outgoing calling, messaging and data usage facilities. Complainant subscribed a Plan being Daily 500 for 07 days on payment of Rs.2,875/- that provides free call and data in Singapore. Such plan was activated from a store on 03/06/2017 at 14.21.17 (IST) and plan was valid for 07 days. As such, the plan would be deactivated on 10/06/2017 at 00.00.00 (IST). Complainant consumed 1246.36 MB data within the time gap and data usage was charged at the default rate of Rs.5.5/10KB. Complainant was charged about Rs.65,000/- for exceeded the credit limit and mobile connection  was disconnected. Complainant has not followed the TRAI prescribed procedure of redressal of his grievance provided under self-contained code of the Sectoral regulator. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering O.P. Accordingly, the answering O.P. prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In spite of service of notices O.Ps.-1 to 3 did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex-parte against the O.Ps.-1 to 3.

Decision with Reasons

            Complainant and authorized signatory of O.P.-4 have tendered evidence through affidavit. They have also given reply to the questionnaires set forth by the adversaries. Both parties have also filed their BNAs. We have examined the material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

            There is no dispute with regard to factum that the complainant was consumer under the O.P.-4 and used Vodafone connection having Mobile No.9830096212. This fact is also admitted that complainant subscribed Plan Red 1299. It is undisputed that the complainant had been to Singapore in the month of June,2017 and activated international roaming services (Plan- Daily 500) for 07 days on payment of Rs.2,875/- which provides free call and data in Singapore. It is also undisputed that the said plan was activated on 03/06/2017 at 14.21.17(IST) and also deactivated on 10/06/2017 at 00.00.00(IST). Complainant again activated the said plan on his Mobile No.9830096212 and plan was expired on 10/06/2017. After expiry of said plan, complainant again activated another roaming pack (Daily 500 1 OGS) on 10/06/2017 at 10.12.21 (IST) and validity of pack was 01 day. The plan was deactivated on 11/06/2017 at 00.00.00 (IST). During the gap of deactivation and activation period the complainant had consumed around 1246.36 MB data and data usage charge was Rs.5.5 / 10 KB. Thus, the complainant  was charged Rs.65,000/- being exceeded credit limit of data usage and mobile connection was disconnected.

            It is undisputed that the O.P.-4 provided service to the complainant under CAF. The telecommunication services inter-alia includes voice telephony, data services and additional value added services. Each of the services are governed by separate rules and regulations as promulgated from time to time protecting the interest of consumers of the telecommunication services is one of the primary tasks of TRAI. TRAI has issued several regulations, directions and orders from time to time on consumer protection, consumer redressal system, quality of service, metering and billing accuracy, transparency in tariff offers, activation of value added services, mobile number portability and curbing of unsolicited commercial communications etc. to make the consumers and the consumer organizations aware of these regulatory measures so that they can effectively safeguard their rights and privileges. As per Consumers Handbook published by TRAI there are three tier complaint redressal mechanism namely (i) Establishment of Complaint Centre to handle complaints, primarily by designated Nodal Officers as notified by the Telecom Service Provider, (ii) Appeal to Appellate Authority and (iii) Advisory Committee.

            The grievance of the complainant is that the alleged bill of Rs.65,000/- is impossible within a span of 03 hours and there is a clear mal practice on the part of the O.Ps. The complainant had been to Singapore and extensively used data on International Roaming after expiry of plan (Daily 500) for 07 days. Complainant consumed 1246.36 MB data within the time gap. Thus, the O.P.-4 charged Rs.65,000/- for excess data uses at the rate of Rs.5.5 / 10 KB. The plan was deactivated and on the request of the complainant again the pack was activated for 01 day. The printed bill was prepared in compliance with the directives of TRAI. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions including tariff rates so fixed and agreed. The subscriber raised objection against the alleged bill and the O.P.-4 did not find any discrepancy in the International Roaming charges. Thus, the complainant automatically gets tagged as a defaulter.

            In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the consumer complaint complainant paid Rs.50,000/- to the Vodafone Mobile Services in order to reconnect the mobile connection and the complainant has amended the consumer complaint to that effect. Thus, the complainant has admitted the alleged bill amount  and paid a part of Rs.65,000/-. Moreover, the complainant did not ventilate his grievance to the 03 tier mechanism mandated by TRAI. The above scheme of the TRAI Act is an exhaustive and a complete code in connection with the issues relating to consumer related matter. Section 2(O) of the C. P. Act, 1986 defines “Service”. “Service” means service of any description which is made available to potential (users and includes but not limited to, the provision of) facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both (housing construction), entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service  free of charge or under a contract of personal service. “Deficiency” is also defined under Section 2(g) of the C. P. Act, 1986. Deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

Complainant consumed 1246.36 MB data within the time gap and data usage was charged at the default rate of Rs.5.5 / 10 KB. Thus, it is the legitimate right of a service provider to ask to the consumer for payment for which service has been provided. Therefore, O.Ps. cannot provide free data service to the complainant beyond the scope of the TRAI regulations.

            Based on the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps. There was also no mal practice on the part of the O.Ps. for disconnection of mobile connection  of the complainant since 01/07/2017. Thus, the complaint found frivolous and liable to be dismissed with cost.

In the result, the case merit fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.-4 with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and also dismissed ex-parte against the O.Ps.-1 to 3 without any cost.