State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Idea Cellular Ltd. vs Dr. Ashok Kumar Oberoi on 26 April, 2016
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 412 of 2015
Date of institution: 17.04.2015
Date of decision : 26.04.2016
Idea Cellular Ltd, C-105, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali-160055,
through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory/Circular Office
Incharge.
.....Appellant-Opposite Party
Versus
Dr. Ashok Kumar Oberoi, S/o Sh. Om Parkash, R/o H. No. 212,
Oberoi Hospital, Kahnuwan Road, Gurdaspur.
......Respondent-complainant
Appeal against the order dated 18.02.2015
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President
Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Ms. Rameet Bakshi, Advocate For the respondent : Sh. Arun Abrol, Advocate VINOD KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/opposite party (in short "OP") against the order dated 18.02.2015 passed by District First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 2 Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent (in short 'complainant') was partly allowed and OP was directed to withdraw the impugned internet charges from the impugned bill besides to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to him for causing unnecessary harassment and to pay Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost. The compliance of the order was ordered to be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy thereof, otherwise awarded amount was to attract interest @ 9% p.m. from the date of order till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant, Dr. Ashok Kumar Oberoi, filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act"), against the OP on the averments that he was having cell phone bearing number 98728-43029 and his email account was [email protected]. He went to USA on 10.06.2014 and he deposited a sum of Rs. 2000/- with OP and was allowed international roaming. The OP issued a bill amounting to Rs. 31,350.38 to him, which was payable by 08.07.2014. In fact, he made only two calls from his above said cell phone number and the charges of those calls were only Rs. 330/-. Except those two calls, he did not use the internet nor he made any email from his email account. He was legally liable to pay Rs. 1559.78 only and rest of the bill amount was illegal and excessive. He requested OP to check the details of the calls made by him and send the revised bill of Rs. 1559.78 only, but it failed to do so. Legal notice dated 17.07.2014 was served upon it which was First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 3 duly acknowledged, but the OP has not admitted his legal and genuine claim. The act and conduct of OP not to withdraw the excessive bill in dispute amounted to deficiency in service on its part. He prayed for issuance of the following directions:-
(i) to quash the illegal bill in dispute and sent him revised bill
(ii) to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment.
3. The complaint was contested by OP by filing written reply before the District Forum. Preliminary objections were taken that no cause of action had arisen to the complainant to file the complaint there was a special remedy provided under section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the CP Act is by implication barred; the complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs. 2000/- with OP to activate the international roaming and it issued a bill of Rs. 31350.38 to him and attached with it all the details of the bill. He made the total usage of GPRS services of Rs. 22,666/- during his stay at Qatar country and Rs. 4110/- during his stay at CINGUL USACG country. The said bill was legal and he is liable to pay the amount of the services used by him during his stay abroad. There is no deficiency in service on its part. Other allegations contained in the complaint were denied. It prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments, before the District Forum, which after going First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 4 through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, partly allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant/OP that District Forum failed to interpret the bill in dispute in a correct manner while passing the order. District Forum has gravely erred in believing the contentions of the respondent/complainant that he had not used the internet facility during his foreign tour. Infact, the complainant had used the GPRS system under the head of 'roaming charges' which shows the usage of 27913.23 units in QATAR and 8214.22 units in CINGUL USACG. Value of both the calls/GPRS usage come to Rs. 22,666/- and Rs. 4110/- respectively. The bill was liable to be paid by the complainant but District Forum on wrong assumptions has allowed the complaint against the reply and evidence filed by OP. Accordingly, it was prayed that the impugned order be set-aside and the appeal be accepted.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondent/complainant that correct findings were recorded by the District Forum and there is no merit in the appeal. It prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
8. It is not disputed that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 2000/- with OP to avail the international roaming facility on his mobile phone number 98728-43029. The appellant/OP issued a bill of Rs. 31350.33 dated 23.06.2014 to him which was payable by First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 5 08.07.2014. As per the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant he made only two calls at QATAR country from his above cell phone number and the charges of those two calls were only Rs. 330/-. He did not use the internet nor he made any email from his email account. On the other hand the version of the OP is that he made total usage of GPRS service of Rs. 22,666/- during his stay at QATAR country and Rs. 4110/- during his stay at CINGUL USACG country. He used GPRS services in the international roaming due to which a bill of Rs. 31350.38 was sent to him.
9. We have perused techopedia (literature) which is on the file. Relevant portions read as under:-
General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) is a packet-based mobile data service on the global system for mobile communications (GSM) of 3G and 2G cellular communication systems. It is a non-voice, high-speed and useful packet- switching tecgnology intended for GSM networks. The data is then reassembled at the recipient's end. International Roaming Tariffs:- The applicable charges are variable and dependent on the foreign operators. For an updated detailed tariff of operators in various countries, we request you to visit our website www.ir.bsnl.co.in. GPRS/Data- The charges for GPRS/Data usage are calculated in terms of the Volume of data sent or received. As with the Voice/SMS, charges here are variable and completely dependent on foreign operators. Also note that your local plans for GPRS/Blackberry are not valid overseas and all data usage are charges at the visited operator rates. First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 6 Data Usage Charges during International Roaming would be applicable as per International Roaming Tariffs. To avoid excessive data roaming charges, enable your handset for "Data Roaming" only when you want to use Data services.
Regular activities of updating Facebook status, BBM, WhatsApp, downloading emails may be restricted. Before going out on international Roaming, it is advised that you contact Idea Customer Care for any queries or updated information in order to enjoy seamless coverage.
10. We have perused invoice No. 0174906325 Ex. OP-5. The same is reproduced as under:-
Itemized Details of Cellular No. 9872843029 Roaming Call Details QATAR Country Usage, Calls Sr. Date Network Time Number Type Duration Airtime Charges Surcharges total No. Name hh.mm.ss Called mm.ss 1 11 Jun-14 QTel 07:15:03 1401890801 In 00.10 130.00 0.00 0.00 130.00 2 11 Jun-14 QTel 08:06:23 919216100114 Out 00.58 200.00 0.00 0.00 200.00 Total 330.00 QATAR Country Usage, GPRS Usage Sr. Date Network Time Number Total Airtime Charges Surcharges total No. Vol/Dur Name hh.mm.ss Called mm.ss 1 11 Jun- QTel 04:44:14 Internet.mnc014mcc4 27913.23 22336.00 0.00 0.00 22336.00 14 04 gors Total 22336.00 Total usage for QATAR Country 22666.00 CINGUL USACG Country Usage, GPRS Usage Sr. No. Date Network Time Number Total Airtime Charges Surcharges total Vol/Dur Name hh.mm.ss Called mm.ss 1 11 CNGLR- 14:30:30 Internet.mnc014mcc4 8214.22 4110.00 0.00 0.00 4110.00 Jun-14 USA-GE O4 gors Total 4110.00 First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 7 Total usage for CINGUL USACG 4110.00 Country Total of Roaming Usage Charges 26776.00
11. On the basis of invoice Ex. OP-5, OP issued a bill dated 23.06.2014 Ex. C-2 for Rs. 31350.38 to him. The two calls admitted by the complainant does not relates to GPRS used by him. Only dispute is the roaming charges of Rs. 26,446/- which comprised mainly the internet facility through GPRS; being Rs. 22,336/- in QATAR and Rs. 4110/- in CINGUL USACG, respectively. The complainant in his affidavit Ex. CW1/A has deposed that except two calls, he did not use the internet. The complainant had been extensively using the internet facility within India; which is evident from the invoice No. 0174906325 for the period from 23.05.2014 to 10.06.2014 Ex. OP-4. It is evident from the above document that the complainant had used the internet in one day i.e. on 10.06.2014 of 22,50.31 units before going abroad. He deposited Rs. 2000/- with OP to activate the internet facility on his mobile phone. No person can deposit Rs. 2000/- only for two calls. When the complainant used the internet of 2250.31 units in one day in India, so, it cannot be believed that he had not used the internet facility during his stay abroad on 11.06.2014. The charges for GPRS/data usage are calculated in terms of the volume of data send or received. As with the voice/SMS charges here are variable and completely dependent on foreign operators. The bill in dispute was computerised bill and was generated by system as per the actual usage. The findings recorded by the District Forum are contrary to the evidence brought First Appeal No. 412 of 2015 8 on record by the OP. Therefore, the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained in this appeal. No deficiency has been proved on the part of OP.
12. Sequel to the above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant/OP is accepted. The order passed by the District Forum is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
13. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.4100/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to them.
14. The arguments in this case were heard on 04.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
April 26, 2016
Rupinder (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)
MEMBER