PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, the opponent is providing mobile service facility with Mobile No.9820 164 794 to the complainant.  It is post dated billing system.  The complainant is using this facility only for personal calls.  Her average monthly bill never exceeds Rs.3,000/-.  The opponent sent the bill dated 18^th February, 2011 for Rs.11,949.24/-,  dated 18^th March, 2011 for Rs.18,950.22/- and dated 18^th April, 2011 for Rs.22,183/-.  The opponent sent these exorbitant bills even though the complainant has not used it to such an extent.  These bills were paid through ECS facility.  The complainant addressed the letter dated 3^rd May, 2011 and requested to change the mode of payment from ECS service to cheque facility.  On 5^th May, 2011, the complainant asked the details of bills for the month of January, February, March-2011.   The opponent did not send the bills for the month of May and June-2011 therefore the complainant could not pay it.  On 10^th June, 2011, Mr. Naresh Kandol an one Sapna Shah visited the complainant and offered the deduction of Rs.10,000/-.  They were asked by the complainant how the bills were jumped from Rs.3,000/- to Rs.11,000/-.  Instead of giving explanation, they offered to deduct the amount by Rs.10,000/-.  It amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.  The complainant refused to settle the dispute vide letter dated 11^th June, 2011 and requested the opponent to refund the bill amount of Rs.53,000/-.  Thereafter, the opponent stopped the services from 1^st July, 2011 without informing the complainant.  The opponent increased the credit limit without consent of the complainant.  The break ups of bills for the month of February, March-2011 supplied by the opponent was vague.  The complainant never used the facility of VF Mobile Connect.  However, the opponent wrongly raised the bills for the VF Mobile Connect services.  Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to reverse the bill amount of Rs.22,000/- charged by the opponent for VF Mobile Connect Facility which was not utilized by the complainant.  She has also claimed interest on this amount.  She has claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. 

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the complainant paid the bill amount and never denied the details of bills.  The complainant is the valuable customer of the opponent.  Therefore, as a goodwill of gesture, the opponent offered waiver of Rs.10,000/- in the bill amount.  The bills were issued as per use of the services by the complainant.  It is denied that the complainant never used VF Mobile Connect Services.  The bills were issued as per use.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- The prayer in the complaint made by the complainant is limited to the charges of Rs.22,000/- for VF Mobile Connect Facility.  According to the complainant, she had not used the VF Mobile Connect Facility and the opponent has wrongly charged for this facility.  The learned advocate for the opponent has drawn our attention to the letters dated 6^th May, 2011and 11^th June, 2011 issued by the complainant to the opponent.  In these letters, the complainant has specifically stated that she just checked her emails and that is only her purpose of having internet connection.  In these letters, the complainant has specifically admitted the use of internet facility therefore, the grievance of the complainant that the opponent charged her without the use of VF Mobile Connect Facility can not be accepted.  The abovesaid letters falsifies the grievance of the complainant.  During the course of argument, the learned advocate for the complainant has made attempt to point out that some phone calls are overlapping and submitted that the details given by the opponent are not genuine.  As stated earlier, the prayer of the complainant in the complaint is limited to reverse the charges for VF Mobile Connect Facility.  The opponent has submitted the details of disputed bills showing the use of VF Mobile Connect Facility. The complainant has used VF Mobile Connect Facility therefore she is liable to pay the charges for it.  The opponent has given the details in the bills about the use of VF Mobile Connect Facility.  The complainant has not pointed out which details are not accepted by her.

5)                It is submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that credit limit of the complainant was Rs.3,000/-  per month and it was extended by the opponent upto Rs.11,000/- without consent of the complainant.  On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that the complainant is the old customer and she was paying the bills regularly therefore her credit limit was extended.  According to him, she never objected and paid the three bill amounts.  Considering this position, we think, the complainant can not avoid her liability merely on the ground that the opponent has extended the credit limit.  She had utilized the services of the opponent therefore she is bound to pay the charges. It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the complainant that the opponent agreed to waive the amount of Rs.10,000/-.  It shows that there was defect in the billing.  It is true that the opponent offered waiver of amount of Rs.10,000/-.  It is submitted by the learned advocate for the opponent that as the complainant was the old customer and paying the bill amount regularly, the opponent agreed to waive the amount as a gesture of goodwill.  Merely because, the opponent offered the waiver of amount, it can not be said that they have admitted the defect in billing.  Admittedly, the opponent offered waiver of Rs.10,000/- in the bill amount.  We think, the opponent should continue this offer even now.  Now, we think it just to consider the offer of the opponent about the waiver of Rs.10,000/- and to direct the opponent to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.  There is no dispute that the complainant paid the disputed bills therefore we are directing the opponent to refund the amount of Rs.10,000/- from the said disputed bill amount.  Thus, there is no proper evidence showing the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent.  However, we are accepting the offer of the opponent for reversing the bill amount of Rs.10,000/-.  We are considering this offer in order to settle the dispute finally. Admittedly, the services of the complainant are already disconnected long back in the year-2011. The complainant has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh and litigation cost.  The offer of Rs.10,000/- was given by the opponent at the time of dispute itself.  The same was refused by the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for compensation or interest or litigation cost.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to refund Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant within a period of one month from today.  On failure to refund the amount within one month, the amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.
3. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
4. Copies of this order be sent to parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 21^st March, 2016