Order-16.
Date-05/07/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that complainant is a consumer subscriber under the OP having connection for more than a decade on his Mobile No.9830024678 with relationship No.154311242 as allowed to him by the OP. The complainant was astonished to receive the bill being No.97551800 dated 15-11-2016 amounting to Rs.1,41,002-82 as against the bill period from 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016. The complainant has alleged that the bill is without any basis and the complainant also did not use the alleged internet services as mentioned therein in the aforesaid bill. The complainant was also compelled to make part payment to the tune of Rs.35,000/- on 15-11-2016 as the complainant received a call from the OP for immediate deposit of the said amount otherwise the mobile connection of the line will be disconnected with immediate effect pending investigation. The complainant was further compelled by the OP to pay further sum of Rs.10,000/- on 05-11-2016 and Rs.8,000/- on 10-11-2016 thus totalling to Rs.53,000/- despite the fact that the complainant has not availed the alleged billed services by the OP. The complainant made several correspondences with the OPs and also sent legal notice on 26-11-2016 expressing his grievance but to no good. The complainant was also assigned a credit limit for 91,200/- by the OP and the bill amount also exceeded the said credit limit. The complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practices against the OP. The complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP to raise correct bill for the period in question along with other reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
OP has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. It is denied that, complainant was compelled to make payment of any amount or he received any call to make any payment as alleged. It is noted that the credit limit was exceeded without any prior intimation to the complainant. It is also stated that credit limited is a facility provided by the OP and it is the duty of the customer to ensure that the same is not exceeded. It is denied that the OP issued inflated bill to extort money from the complainant. It is also denied that the OP is deficient in rendering service or indulged in unfair trade practice. It is stated that OP is a company of repute and has been operating without a blemish and the complainant was rightly billed from 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016 in accordance with particular bill plan according to his user. It is stated that allegations of the complainant are incorrect, false, fake, frivolous and devoid of any merit and the present case is liable to be dismissed in limini.
Point for Decision
- Whether OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant?
- Whether OP has indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We have perused the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of Vodafone Bill for the period 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016 amounting to Rs.1,41,017-51, Xerox copy of Itemized Calls for the bill period 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016, Xerox copy of legal noticed and the other documents on record.
We have also seen the documents filed from the side of the OP i.e. Xerox copy of usage details for the bill period 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016, Xerox copy of itemized call for the bill period from 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016.
It appears that the complainant received a bill being No.97551800 dated 15-10-2016 amounting to Rs.1,41,007-82 for bill period 15-09-2016 to 14-10-2016 in respect of his mobile connection. The complainant has questioned the sanctity of the said bill and has alleged that bill in question was raised by the OP in arbitrary, inflated and discretionary manner without having any basis. It appears that the complainant has not denied or disputed the applicable monthly charge of Rs.1,888/-, call charges of Rs.171/-, Sms charges of Rs.8/- National Roaming Charges of Rs.233-99 , incoming and outgoing calls during international roaming amounting to Rs.5,046/-, internal outgoing SMS charges of Rs.15/-, Value Added Services of Rs.465/-, all totalling to Rs.7,126-99. The complainant has, however, denied and disputed the billing with regard to mobile charges during international roaming amounting to Rs.1,15,494-50.
We have perused the call details including usage details and itemized call for the period in question. We know that with the invention of new technologies mobile handsets are provided with data supporting features. We find that there is a data transfer with Vodafone mobile connect of 204.72 MB, for same complainant has been charged Rs.15,494.50 in according to Rs.5.50/10 kB as the date surfing has been done in International roaming congruence to the dates when Vodafone mobile connect has been accessed MB for same he has been charged Rs.15,494.50 in according to Rs.5.50/10kB as the date surfing has been done in International roaming. The date on which these usages have taken place i.e. 05-10-2016 to 12-10-2016 are in congruence to the dates when Vodafone mobile connect has been accessed MB for same complainant have been charged Rs.15,494-50 in according to Rs.5.50/10kB as the data surfing has been done in International roaming. The dates on which these usages have taken place i.e. 05-10-2016 to 12-10-2016 are in congruence to the dates when Vodafone mobile connect has been accessed from complainant’s handset.
Nevertheless, it is an established practice prevailing in the present market scenario that all service provider of telecommunications fix an assigned credit limit with regard to its postpaid customers in order to check the excessive usage and to avoid default by its customers. In the event the assigned credit limit to its customers/consumers exceeds, the computer surveyor of the service provider automatically blocks the over use of its customer. We find from the bill in question that the complainant was assigned in this case agreed limit of Rs.91,200/- by the OP and we failed to understand in all respects as to why his credit limit was exceeded without any prior intimation to the complainant and despite computerized checking which is under the control of the staff/representatives of the OP. Moreover, we observe that it is strange that even after existing credit limit of the complainant, the billing of the complainant kept on increasing which clearly indicates the deficiency in service of the relevant staff and or representative of the OP to continue with such exceeding bill. We think that the OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant in this regard and the complainant also exhibited a gesture of wrongful gain in this regard in exceeding the credit limit of the complainant. We think that the OP cannot claim more than the credit limit of Rs.91,200/-. We think that in exceeding the credit limit, OP has demonstrated a gesture of deficiency in service in not blocking the over usage to its customer. We think that there must be some mala fide intention on the part of the OP in not blocking the over usage of the credit limit and OP cannot claim amount more than the credit limited of Rs.91,200/- to the OP vide the said bill.
Consequently, the case merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP.
OP is directed to raise a corrected bill for the period 15-09-2016 to 14-09-2016 up to the credit limit of Rs.91,200/- showing deduction of Rs.53,200/- which has already been paid by the complainant to the OP within one month from the date of this order apart from litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution under appropriate provision in C.P. Act.
