Order-12.
Date-28/03/2016.
Complainant M. Isharat Ali Mollaby filing this complaint has submitted that complainant as a post-paid connection Mobile No.9874832770 of Vodafone Company and the details call of consumption of the month of September and October 2015 bill provided by the company and the same is found faulty, guilty and illogical.
The bill consisting of ISD usage as 109 minutes which call charges of every call normally # Rs.13.30 paise is calculated as Rs.1,453/- and even though complainant had been provided a monthly promotion of Rs.199/- for getting relief from normal rate i.e. Rs.13.30 paise, which call cost of every call will be Rs.6.99 paise.
Under this circumstances an enormous time complainant contacted with the customer care unit of Vodafone Company and finally complainant sent a letter to the authority of said company through Speed Post letter No. EW751590760IN on 31.10.2015, besides on the same day two requests were registered nos. 117613132 and 117895032 in which the customer care unit of Vodafone Company assured the complainant that the reply should be given before 10.15 a.m. on 02.11.2015. But no response has been given by the said company till today and instead of this this company has restricted all out bound call of complainant’s mobile number without providing the complainant any early information since 29.10.2015.
For the above reason complainant is out of contact with his entire official as well as personal works and mentally harassed what has caused mental sufferings, financial loss and also the dignity of the complainant who is a Professor & Head, Dept. of Arabic & Persian of Calcutta University. In the above circumstances, complainant has prayed for redressal.
On the other hand on behalf of the Vodafone Company op it is specifically mentioned that op received a copy of complaint petition of the complainant. but it is fact that bill has been received by the answering op based on actual usage and not on any calculation as alleged/put forward by the complainant.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant did not understand the monthly promotion of Rs.199/- properly because the system generated invoice dated 10.10.2015 which stands already provided to the complainant, contained the monthly promotion of ISD only for the United Arab Emirates and not for other countries, for which complainant made calls during the period mentioned in his complaint and it is pertinent to mention here that the bills are generated automatically based on usage of the complainant without any scope of miscalculation as alleged or otherwise.
Further the customer was provided with the chargeable calls/data usage and the complainant tried to suppress those facts by not attaching the said invoice in the complaint, just to harass the answering op. But answering op submitted that complainant did not pay the outstanding bill amount due to which the outgoing call services have been deactivated as per regulation.
It is specifically mentioned that complainant failed to interpret and understand the plan and the tariffs that he availed of and hence he is claiming benefits to which he is not entitled and such claims are denied as malafide, baseless one.
Further it is submitted that it is a fact that complainant availed of tariff plan .ISD UAE (11) at the rate of Rs.6.999 RC 199 Y1. with pack offering call rates to UAE at Rs.6.99 paise instead of Rs.11 against Monthly rental of Rs.199/- and it appears from the ISD codes of the numbers dialed that complainant availed of the monthly promotion of ISD only for the United Arab Emirates and not for other countries but made calls to such other countries including Jordan, etc. during the period mentioned in his complaint as is evident from system generated invoice dated 10.10.2015.
However, such bill showing the actual usage is not filed along with the complaint. So, considering that fact it is clear that complaint is frivolous for which this complaint should be dismissed and there was no negligence on the part of the op for which the present complaint is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On careful consideration of materials on record and also the defence of the op including materials, it is found that op Company published a notification for save up to 60 percent on ISD calls with Vodafone ISD packs (http.//thetelecomnews.com/save-upto-60-percent-on-isd-calls-with-vodafone-isd-packs/1004) and that is submitted by the complainant and about that publication or regulation, op has not complied and after stating that literary or notification of the op, it is clear that calls to any network in the Golf (Soudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Baharin) at the rate of Rs.6.99 paise minimum 30 days validity, no talk time, it is specifically mentioned.
Further it is specifically mentioned that in the said notification that ISD Packs have been designed by understanding the international calling needs and behavior of prepaid consumers in their circle and their internal research indicates that over 70 percent of all international calls by Indians are made to 14 select countries spread across US/UK/Canada, South Asia, SAARC and Gulf regions and those customized ISD packs will enable their customers to stay connected with their dear ones in those international locations at affordable rates.
If we consider the said notification of the op, it is clear that within that para that is Vodafone topped up and special re-charges Soudi-Arabia is also included UAE and Baharin. Then how the op can say that this pack is only for UAE. But from thenotification of the op, it is clear that the said benefit shall be applicable in respect of the call to UAE, Soudi-Arbia, Qatar etc. When that is the fact, then invariably complainant was entitled to get such benefit as per that promotional pack as granted. Then under what circumstances, op only fixed the said promotion for only UAE, that means the op no doubt by their act deceived the complainant. Their notification clearly speaks that promotional pack for Rs.199/- is applicable in respect of UAE, Baharin, Soudi-Arabia and Jordan is within the Soudia-Arabia. So, complainant is entitled to get such benefit. But op did not allow. When that is the fact, then it is clear that the entire bill sent by the op is uncalled for and at the same time it is deceitful manner of trade on the part of the op.
Truth is that complainant used the Vodafone for Jordan and that is admitted fact and Jordan is part of Soudi-Arabia. Then why op did not give such relief when he availed of such promotional ISD use for Rs.199/- and why the bill was charged at the rate of Rs.13.30 paise when there was promotional pack of Rs.199/- and that was used for talking relatives of Jordan. Actually the rate ought to have been raised at the rate of Rs.6.99 paise per minute but that has not been done.
But in this regard op has tried to say that the said pack was only for UAE not for Jordan. But it is found that such a defence of op is nonsense defense as their publication and notification as produced by the complainant which is not challenged by the op simply speaks that the said pack was equally applicable for UAE, Soudi-Arbia, Kuwait etc. that means op has submitted a false defence.
But op is bound to rectify the same and give the complainant a chance to repay such amount as per special benefit given by the op to the complainant that is promotional rate for his talking with any man of Jordan when Jordan is part of Soudi-Arabia and when Soudi-Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Baharin etc. are within the range of that calls to any network in Gulf (Soudi-Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Baharin) when that is the fact, then it is clear that complainant has been deceived by the op and op no doubt submitted a false defence and fact remains that as consumer, complainant has been deceived by the op for which op shall have to rectify the said error in the bill to restore his connection within one month from the date of this order, otherwise op shall have to pay compensation and further for harassing such a professor of Calcutta University, op shall have to pay litigation cost also because for the laches and negligence on the part of the op and for not rendering proper service and for deceitful manner of trade, complainant professor of Calcutta University appeared before this Forum for filing this complaint when op’s entire defence is baseless and when the present complaint is maintainable in view of the fact that op is controlled and guided by Telecom Authority of India.
In the result, this complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- against op.
Op is hereby directed to rectify the bill without any harassment against the mobile no.9874832770 of Vodafone Company in respect of the period from September to October 2015 and also to restore the connection of the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which op shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month till compliance of the decree by the op.
For harassing such a Professor of Calcutta University in such a manner and for adopting deceitful manner of trade, op is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for harassing and for causing mental pain and agony and also for not giving proper service to the complainant by dis-connecting the said mobile without any legal notice.
For non-compliance of the Forum’s order, op shall have to pay penal interest at the rate of Rs.100/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum.
Op is also hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which penal proceeding shall be started u/s 25 read with Section 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon op.
