State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sebastiao A. T. Gonsalves vs Managing Director, Idea Cellular. Ltd. on 5 July, 2023
BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANAJI-GOA
In the matter of First Appeal 20 of 2023 in Consumer
Complaint 79 of 2017.
Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, President (off.)
Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar, Member
Adv. Ms. Rachna A. M. Gonsalves, Member
Shri Sebastiao A. T. Gonsalves,
R/o H.No. 132, 2nd Daddio,
Telaulim, Navelim,
Salcete Goa-403707. ......Appellant
V.
Managing Director,
Idea Cellular Limited,
Suman Tower, plot No.18,
Sector 11, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat-382001. ......Respondent-1
(deleted)
Idea Cellular Limited,
Suman Tower, plot No.18,
Sector 11, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat-382011. ......Respondent-2
(amalgamated into Respondent No.6)
Managing Director,
Acotel Interactive India Private Ltd.,
Office No. 504, 5th floor, The Avenue,
Opp. the Leela International Airport Rd.,
Andheri(E), Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400059. ......Respondent-3
Acotel Interactive India Private Ltd.,
Office No. 504, 5th floor, The Avenue,
Opp. the Leela International Airport Rd.,
Andheri(E), Mumbai,
Maharashtra-400059. ......Respondent-4
1
Chief Executing Officer (CEO),
Vodafone Idea Limited,
Suman Tower, plot No.18,
Sector 11, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat-382011. ......Respondent-5
Vodafone Idea Limited,
Suman Tower, plot No.18,
Sector 11, Gandhinagar,
Gujarat-382011. .......Respondent-6
Adv. Shri E. Fernandes present for Appellant.
DATE: 05/07/2023
JUDGMENT
[per Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, President (off.)]
1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28/4/2023 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa (The District Commission for short) in Consumer complaint No. 79 of 2023. The Appellant was Complainant and Respondents were the opposite parties (OPs for short) in said complaint. Parties shall herein after be referred to as per their status in the said complaint.
2. The Complainant had filed the said complaint praying therein to direct OPs to credit Rs.126/- in the prepaid account of the Complainant, for compensation of Rs.1,000/- payable to the Complainant, for the mental harassment caused to him and punitive damages of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Complainant.
23. Case of the Complainant in short is as follows:-
That the Complainant is the prepaid subscriber of cellular phone services offered by OP2. The Complainant stated that on 31/08/2017, without his consent, the OPs activated gaming service and on 4/9/2017, the OPs also activated Bollywood diary and thus deducted Rs.126/- from his pre paid cellular phone account. The said services were activated through the flash SMS. The Complainant immediately sent the SMS to 'STOP' the said services and the OP deactivated the said services. The Complainant also sent an email to the OP on 14/9/2017, seeking a refund of Rs.126/- that had been deducted illegally from his account. Despite his attempts to seek Redressal, the Complainant did not receive any response from the OP. The Complainant thus filed the complaint.
4. The Complainant relied upon email notice of complaint dated 14/9/2017, details of SMS received/sent by Complainant, email dated 14/9/2017 from OPs to the Complainant, flash SMS/alleged response of Complainant to the flash SMS, 2 printouts of website of OP, Directions dated 04/7/2011 and 10/7/2013 issued by TRAI.
5. Case of OP1 and OP2 in short is as under:-
That the Complainant who is the phone subscriber received an excess bill for value added services (VAS) charges that he claims and he did not request to activate. VAS are optional third party services that are provided by mobile companies through the internet (WAP) or flash messages and they cannot be activated 3 unless they are opted for by subscriber. The Opposite Party stated that the Complainant must have used and clicked on the pop-up options to activate the VAS services, which cannot be activated automatically.
The system used by telecom operators is automated and no manual interference is involved. The activation of VAS services is controlled by the customer and the OP cannot activate or deactivate them without the customer's consent. The Opposite Party further stated that after the Complaint was received, it was investigated and it was found that the VAS services was duly activated by the Complainant and the complaint was closed after informing the same to the Complainant on call. All the VAS services were deactivated and were not renewed. The Opposite Party also stated that the Complainant's issue was over a legally deducted amount of Rs.126/- only, which was reversed as a gesture of goodwill, provided additional talk time of Rs.124/-. Thus providing the Complainant total credit of Rs.250/- and also duly informing the Complainant about the same.
6. Vide the impugned Judgment, the District Commission observed that the activation of VAS is controlled by the customer and there is no evidence to prove that VAS services were activated without the Complainant's consent. The OPs are not liable to pay any compensation or punitive damages to the Complainant. The customers have right to receive high quality services and be safeguarded from unjust trade practices. Nevertheless, in this particular case, the Complainant has been unable to furnish convincing evidence to support any claim of service inadequacy on the part of the OPs. The Complaint has been dismissed. The Complainant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order.
47. We have heard the oral arguments on admission. Adv. E. Fernandes argued on behalf of the Complainant. We have gone through the entire material on record.
8. After hearing the Advocate for Appellant, we noted that the services were activated on the phone of Complainant. The said services were activated through the flash SMS. But after the complaint from the Complainant, the Opposite Party deactivated the VAS services and were not renewed Rs.126/- which was deducted for the said services were also reversed back and as a matter of goodwill the additional talk time of Rs.124/- was provided by OP 5 and 6. Thus providing Complainant total credit of Rs.250/- and this was informed to the Complainant.
9. That we are unable to understand when the matter has been satisfactorily resolved what brings the Complainant to file the complaint against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party not only reversed the deducted amount but also provided the additional talk time, the total credit of Rs.250/- provided to the Complainant which is in our opinion a appropriate resolution to solve the matter. But the Complainant is not satisfied with the same and despite chose to proceed with the matter.
10. Adv. for the Complainant was harping upon the correctional measures against the OP which we upon thoughtful consideration find that we as a Commission in no way can certainly assume or deemed to assume the powers of which are beyond our jurisdiction which he has prayed for in his submission. We are also in the view that although the 5 Complainant expects directions it is against OP and beyond our powers to direct or entertain such a relief.
11. Also we live in a digitally savvy era where in each day we are bombarded with technical intricacies which are beyond our layman awareness and we are in the view that the Telecom service providers ought to, not only safeguard the interest of their consumers but also create an awareness what "VAS" is all about so that consumers are vigilant of the such services. The service providers cannot abstain from their duty to inform and shyaway from being responsible service providers.
12. That the District Commission rightly observed that VAS services were activated without the Complainant's consent and the Complainant has been unable to furnish convincing evidence to support any claim of service inadequately on the part of the OPs. The Complainant also failed to prove that he was mentally harassed by the Opposite Parties.
13. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as they already reversed the deducted amount with additional talk time of Rs.124/-, total credit of Rs.250/-.
14. As has been rightly held by the District Commission, the Complainant failed to show whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and therefore is not entitled to the relief claimed. The impugned Order is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record and no interference with the same is called for.
615. In the result we pass the following:
ORDER The Appeal is dismissed with no Order as to costs.
[Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale] Officiating President [Dr. Nagesh S. Colvalkar] Member [Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves] Member SM 7