Order-12.
Date-25/07/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he has been a subscriber of the OP with the No.9830056967 on a post paid plan for about 15 years. The average monthly bills of the complainant comes around Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. The complainant had gone to Bangladesh on 26-11-2015 and returned on 28-11-2015. He had requested for international roaming to be activated for those three days. Being aware of the prohibitive rates the complainant had not made more than four calls of very short duration and received one call and sent one SMS. Returning to India on 28-11-2015, the complainant de-activated the international roaming services till thereafter, made payment of Rs.4,000/- on 30-11-2015 and after that, his outstanding dues were shown to be standing at Rs.15,965/- by an SMS from the OP. On 01-11-2015 he received another SMS that his total usage is Rs.19,885/- and on the very same date his data services were curtailed by another SMS. On 02-12-2015, complainant received another SMS saying that his total usage stands at Rs.34,188/-. He immediately sent a mail protesting the same. On 04-12-2015 he received another e-mail from OP informing that the complainant had been charged correctly. Complainant sent another e-mail on 05-12-2015 to the OP ventilating his grievances. On 07-12-2015, OP replied to the complainant that the complainant should wait the bill to be generated. On the same date, the complainant paid Rs.1,988/- as part of his outstanding bill. Subsequently, the complainant was supplied with the bill by the OP for the concerned period amounting to Rs.21,595-35 of which Rs.21,302-50 was shown as international roaming charges. Complainant seeks a refund of Rs.21,092-50 along with other reliefs. Hence, this case.
OP filed written version, challenging the maintainability of the case but subsequently, failed to contest the case. On the date of hearing argument Ld. Advocate for the OP appeared and filed some decisions.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether the OP is guilty of deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Regarding the point of maintainability it can be said that the powers of telegraph authority neither have been tested nor are available to private telecom services provider and BSNL. Therefore, course to Sec.-7(b) in case of disputes between consumer and private service providers and even BSNL could not be available. Department of Telecommunications vide their letter No. 2-17/2013/policy-1 has informed that the Dist. Fora are competent to entertain consumer disputed involving telecom service providers and consumers. We think that the case in the present form is maintainable in Law (W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M.No.21319/2010, Date of Decision 06-02-2012 relied upon).
We have travelled through the documents, e-mails filed from the side of the complainant, it appears that OP on different dates raised different bills of different amount for the concerned period. It is alleged from the side of the OP in written version that the roaming data charges as was raised by the Bangladesh partner of the OP has been passed on to the complainant.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant had gone to Bangladesh on 26-11-2015 and returned on 28-11-2015. Admittedly, he had requested for international roaming to be activated for those three days. The bill period of 21-11-2015 to 20-12-2015 shows usage of incoming calls, outgoing calls as well as mobile used on that mobile connection of the complainant while on international roaming and we find that the complainant was charged with Rs.21,595-31. The details of such data usage have also been provided in the bills. But the question remains, whether the OP was justified in allowing their international roaming partner for data usage without the knowledge and consent of the complainant? Moreover, we find that the OP deactivated internet core services for the complainant whose bill was not finally generated. We think that the OP has shown a gesture of deficiency of service as regards the points as mentioned. We find that the complainant is a customer of the OP over 15 years. He always paid his bills promptly and diligently. Even the instant bill which has been challenged by the complainant has been paid in full as reflected from the record. On the contrary, OP has not been able to justify in allowing their international roaming partner for data usage without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. OP has not also been equitable in de-activating internet core services for a complainant on 01-12-2015 while the bill was not finally generated. We think that it is a dearth of service on the part of the OP.
In result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte but on merit against the OP.
OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for harassment, mental agony apart from litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within one month form the date of this order i.d. the complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution and in that event, OP will be liable to pay an amount of Rs.100/- per diem to be deposited to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.
