Date of filing : 14/11/2014
Order No. 22 dt. 13/03/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant took a mobile connection from the o.p.1 on 10.07.2014 keeping the existing number. The complainant while taking mobile connection selected the bill plan for monthly rental of Rs.399/- and the credit limit said by o.p.1 was Rs.1600/- per one month. The complainant all on a sudden came to learn that o.p.1 stopped the service of the complainant. The complainant informed the o.p.1 regarding the payment of the amount to the donor service provider but the service of the complainant was not restored. Subsequently the complainant on 19.08.2014 received another message whereby it was informed that usage had gone up to Rs.1984/- and since it is above the credit limit, interim payment has to be made to avoid interruption of service. Thereafter the complainant made several correspondences with the o.ps and since the withdrawal of outgoing call of the complainant on and from 17.08.2014 till 18.08.2014 and again from 25.08.2014 to 07.09.2014 tantamount to gross deficiency in service for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost as well as interest.
O.ps contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the o.ps run the business as per the guideline provided by TRAI the service provider make the usage charges after getting approval from the TRAI. The complainant applied for mobile portability of his Aircel mobile no.9748591590 by filing the requisite customer agreement form. However, the complainant could not enjoy the continued services of Vodafone due to nonpayment of the previous outstanding amount at the donor service provider (Aircel)’s end. The o.p. in order to clarify the said fact inserted the message history in the w/v. The system generated bill clarified the said position. The dynamic credit limit is calculated on the basis of average usage of the customer. In certain situation like excessive usage exceed the credit limit as there may be difference in real time usage and subsequent actual billing based on the same. The o.ps duly informed the complainant regarding the outstanding dues the liability of compensation cannot be conferred upon the o.ps since there was no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant on the basis of false and frivolous ground filed this case for which the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-
- Whether the complainant had the Aircel connection and subsequently ported to o.p.1 ?
- Whether there was any amount due to the service provider?
- Whether the adjustment of the outstanding dues with the current bill was illegal?
- Was there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant took a mobile connection from the o.p.1 on 10.07.2014 keeping the existing number. The complainant while taking mobile connection selected the bill plan for monthly rental of Rs.399/- and the credit limit said by o.p.1 was Rs.1600/- per one month. The complainant all on a sudden came to learn that o.p.1 stopped the service of the complainant. The complainant informed the o.p.1 regarding the payment of the amount to the donor service provider but the service of the complainant was not restored. Subsequently the complainant on 19.08.2014 received another message whereby it was informed that usage had gone up to Rs.1984/- and since it is above the credit limit, interim payment has to be made to avoid interruption of service. Thereafter the complainant made several correspondences with the o.ps and since the withdrawal of outgoing call of the complainant on and from 17.08.2014 till 18.08.2014 and again from 25.08.2014 to 07.09.2014 tantamount to gross deficiency in service for which the complainant filed this case praying for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost as well as interest.
Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the o.ps run the business as per the guideline provided by TRAI the service provider make the usage charges after getting approval from the TRAI. The complainant applied for mobile no. portability of his Aircel mobile no.9748591590 by filing the requisite customer agreement form. However, the complainant could not enjoy the continued services of Vodafone due to nonpayment of the previous outstanding amount at the donor service provider (Aircel)’s end. The o.p. in order to clarify the said fact inserted the message history in the w/v. The system generated bill clarified the said position. The dynamic credit limit is calculated on the basis of average usage of the customer. In certain situation like excessive usage exceed the credit limit as there may be difference in real time usage and subsequent actual billing based on the same. The o.ps duly informed the complainant regarding the outstanding dues the liability of compensation cannot be conferred upon the o.ps since there was no deficiency in service on their part. The complainant on the basis of false and frivolous ground filed this case for which the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant previously enjoyed the mobile connection from Aircel company. since she found that the services of Aircel was not satisfactory for which she opted to o.p.1 for getting service connection from o.p.1 by means of porting the said number with the new service provider. The service charges are claimed by the mobile service provider as per the guideline given by TRAI. The o.p.1 after getting the application form from the complainant took steps for porting the service from Aircel to o.p.1. During the course of providing service to the complainant a message was received from erstwhile service provider i.e. Aircel that some amount was remaining due from the complainant and the said fact was informed to complainant. Since the bill is prepared through system generated thereby the o.p.1 had no other way but to realize the amount remaining due to the earlier service provider. The o.p.1 merely adjusted the due amount and informed the said fact to the complainant. Since the complainant failed to pay the amount the connection was stopped. On perusal of the materials on record we do not find any cogent material against the o.ps so as to hold that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Accordingly we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is ordered,
that the CC No.692/2014 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
