Date of Hearing: 21.08.2015
Date of Judgment: Thursday, the 27th Day of August, 2015-08-25
JUDGMENT
The instant consumer complaint u/s. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act) initiated by the Petitioner against the Opposite Party with a prayer for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the alleged violation of provisions of Section 2(g)(o)&(r)(1)(ii)&(iv) of the Act.
In a capsulated form, Petitioner’s allegation is that he is the user of the Mobile connectivity of the Opposite Party since 1986 being No.9830047424 and from the very beginning he was paying monthly bills regularly and using the said Post-paid connection. Usually, the bills had come in between Rs.2,300/- and Rs.2,600/- with VMC Net Pack of Rs.98/- per month on an average. The bill for the month of January, 2013 for the period from 06.01.2013 to 05.02.2013 had been received unusually high to the tune of Rs.10,774.20 P. for which Internet cost was Rs.8,687.64 P. The Petitioner states that he is not too much Net Savvy and such the amount of the bill of Rs.8,667.64 appears to be a massive one. On receipt of bill he had informed the Customer Care of the Opposite Party on 21.02.2013 regarding the massive high bill amount and subsequently, he has made several communications but the Opposite Party did not take any step for redressal of his grievances. On 08.07.2013 the Opposite Party had disconnected the outgoing call. The Petitioner has alleged that the Opposite Party had deliberately mala fide, wrongfully and intentionally prepared the bill for the period between 06.01.2013 and 05.02.2013 for which the Petitioner changed the Service Provider from Vodafone to Airtel. Hence, the instant complaint for causing unreasonable harassment, frustration, mental agony and financial loss etc.
The Opposite Party filing a Written Version has disputed the claim contending inter-alia that they have no liability whatsoever to pay any sum to the Petitioner as compensation. The relief claimed by the Petitioner in his complaint is not maintainable as there is no material particularly regarding the loss suffered. So, the case should be dismissed with costs.
In order to substantiate his case the Petitioner has filed evidence on affidavit. Equally one Smt. Ananya Bhattacharyay being authorised signatory of the Opposite Party has also filed evidence on affidavit. Both the Parties have also filed good number of documents in support of their submissions. In addition to the same, the Opposite Party has also filed B.N.A.
In order to adjudicate the dispute in question, the following points are framed for the adjudication, - (1) Is the Consumer Complaint is bad for defect of Parties? (2) Is the Petitioner a consumer under the Opposite Party? If so, was there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? (3) Is the Petitioner is entitled to get the compensation, as prayed for?
D E C I S I O N
Points No.1,2 & 3 – All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
On scrutiny of the materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates for the respective Parties it emerges that the Complainant/Petitioner had Mobile connectivity being No.9830047424 of the Opposite Party. The Petitioner availing the said connectivity as Post-paid connection and was using the service of the Opposite Party without any complaint whatsoever in respect of payment of bills. Usually, the bills used to come below Rs.3,000/- per month on an average. However, an inflated bill of Rs.10,774.20 P. was sent for the month of January, 2013 for the period in between the 06.1.2013 and 05.02.2013. On receipt of such bill the Petitioner has made several communications with the Opposite Party regarding such massive bill amount particularly about huge internet charge amounting to Rs.8,667.84 P. but the Opposite Party did not take any action.
The materials on record also indicates that due to non-payment of the bill the Opposite Party has disconnected the outgoing call from the Mobile No. of the Petitioner from 08.07.2013 and as such, the Petitioner has changed the Mobile connectivity from the Opposite Party to Airtel.
In this regard, the guideline of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) is important. The TRAI has given customer guidance for availing the Mobile No. portability. In clause 8 of the said request for porting indicates that in case of Post-paid subscriber the paid copy of last bill along with Porting Form and CAF are required. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not paid the disputed bill and has filed the consumer complaint without following the guideline of TRAI.
The Petitioner has claimed for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. But, in this regard there is no averment on the basis of what the Petitioner has claimed Rs.25,00,000/- as compensation. In fact, the Petitioner has claimed an inflated amount. There is no logic or basis as to why Petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- . When the record was taken up for hearing we put this question to the Ld. Advocate for the Petitioner how the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- arrived at as compensation as there is no specific averment or split-up in the petition of complaint to that effect. Needless to say, such an exorbitant claim must be discarded when the basis or foundation of such claim is total absent.
In Gyan Prakash vs. MPNL, (1993) II CPJ 230 the Hon’ble National Commission has observed that the tendency by filing inflated claim is increasing and those are to be rejected by the Courts. Needless to say, a compensation should not be a faulty or bounty but just and proper. The Complainant without pleading any special damages, without breaking up the amount of the compensation prayed for a fabulous compensation without any justification and as such it cannot be entertained.
So far allegation of deficiency of service is concerned, materials on record indicates that there was high data usage by the Complainant in between 06.01.2013 and 05.02.2013. In fact, after giving necessary discounts it was charged to Rs.8,697.64 P. without taxes for data usage. The usage details has been filed by the Opposite Party does not show any discrepancy. The data browsing and downloading of any application is only possible when hand set software configuration data in active and respective applications are all in line. It could not be denied on successfully data transfer and download only customer gets bill by the Mobile Service Provider. There is hardly any dispute that apart from data usage the monthly charges includes massaging charges, conference call charges and voice call charges were also imposed to the Mobile of the Petitioner.
The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the Petitioner without payment of disputed bills switched over from Vodafone to Bharti Airtel. Since the service provider has been changed from the Opposite Party to Bharti Airtel and at the time of lodging the complaint Bharti Airtel was the Service Provider to the Petitioner, the said Bharti Airtel should have been impleaded as a Party for the proper adjudication of the dispute.
The facts and circumstances of the case indicate that the Petitioner of this case was under the impression that the charges of Mobile connection of the Opposite Party would not be beyond his personal perception amounting to Rs.2,600/- to Rs.3,000/- per month. Such an assumption or presumption bears no significance because the Opposite Party has provided chargeable calls/data usage and detailed to the Petitioner for better appreciation of facts. The Petitioner did not pay outstanding bills and could not satisfy us on any of the points that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. A mere presumption would not suffice before a court to grant relief to a Party. On the contrary, it reveals that the Petitioner had applied to change connection from Vodafone to Airtel through portability on 18.01.2013 and bill shows an excessive net usage from 20.01.2013 to 05.02.2013 amounting to Rs.8,687.64 P. Since all the usages duly and item-wise calls has been placed before this Commission which does not show any discrepancy of the part of the Opposite Party and the Petitioner has to fail to submit item-wise any deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, the instant complaint must fail.
In view of the above, all the 3 points are decided against the Petitioner and disposed of accordingly.
As a result, the instant Complaint case fails. It is, accordingly,
O R D E R E D
that the instant complaint case is dismissed on contest. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs.
