Incorrect and false billing from vodafone
asha rani singh
(Querist) 09 January 2014
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
I PAWAN CHOPRA Vodafone tel no 9820439836 complaint no 800831464, have been harassed for past three months. Some exhorbitant billing happened 20 times my monthly bill, For that I have written to Vodafone care centre and Vodafone appellate authority.
They haven't addressed my complaint till date. I have paid 90% of the billing amount.
But they have gone ahead and deactivated my phone connection.
Sir I am shocked of such high handed approach. They haven't replied to any of my querries, no Vodafone company official is approachable.
Their solution to my problem is to accept their terms or face deactivation.
Such armtwisting business practice must be stopped.
Sir I am forwarding letter I have written to Vodafone.
Need your help and guidance.
PAWAN CHOPRA 022 26368207, 7506300669
To Vodafone
Sub ; International roaming activation on 27th oct 2013 and exhorbitant bill amount
I have written various emails since November when I was informed my bill has reached 20 times my monthly bill. And not a single satisfactory reply I have received from your side . Not any effort taken from your side to address my concern.
Besides writing to you , going to Vodafone care centre in andheri and talking to your Vodafone people and depositing 15,000 of 18000 bill amount. You Vodafone shown total disregard by blocking my outgoing services that too without informing me.
What action has been taken from your side on my complaints. Every letter of yours has one sentence informing me that your billing is accurate.
Vodafone hasn't bothered to give written reply to my queries. I fail to understand why you have not informed me by sms or phone call when such exorbitant billing was happening. On the contrary Vodafone called my landline no and chose not to inform my wife about the billing happening of which I had no idea.Why no information of any kind was given to me when I took international roaming. Why no advisory.When this has been very common complaints why Vodafone hasn't taken any step.Is international roaming and phone with various applications is a kind of trap
This is highly ridiculous on your part in not even bothering to reply to my letters on specific points. Avoiding clarifications of any sort of it . On top of it disconnecting my outgoing causing me mental agony and huge financial loss.
I fail to understand why their is total lack of effort from Vodafone to satisfy the customer.
On 17th December Mr Ahmed called me and after listening to me he said will give 30% discount on November billing.and after that phone gets disconnected and no further communication.
On 21stDecember at 4.13pm I receive another call by Shazad Mohd Hussain Malik .He told me that they are wavering of my balance amount and asked me to deposit Rs 845, and he told me that once I deposit he will reactivate my outgoing services.
I deposited 845 and called up Vodafone.And it was disgusting when they told me they have no instructions. What is this, some kind of joke?Till date I haven't received any clarifications regarding this.
On 22nd November Mr Bhushan calls up and this time he speaks to my wife. She communicates our concerns .And subsequently I receive e mail again samekind of reply stressing your system is accurate.
I have been harassed by Vodafone for past 2 months . I think you are acting like a wall, sending system generated e mails.
Please note on4th jan2013, without any intimation my incoming have also been disconnected.Their was no one whom I could approach in any of the stores I andheri or worli office as I was told sat, sunday is non working day.I t has caused me huge professional monetary loss and mental harassment inspit of paying 15000 plus 845( as mentioned above).
It is a serious matter .I requested appointment with some senior officer from Vodafone but my request was turned down time and again and I was told (it is not possible).I request you to kindly start my incoming
I demand reversal of international roaming charges, reactivating my outgoing with immediate effect. Or let me know why I shouldn't approach consumer court or telecom regulatory authority of india.
As I fail to understand even after paying more than 90% (in protest) of exhorbitant billing, First my outgoings are disconnected, and now all my services disconnected without any intimation. I request you to look into the matter urgently and do the needful as early as possible.
PAWAN CHOPRA 7506300669
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 09 January 2014
Many mobile operators do this type of problem.
You cannot approach the consumer court.
You can give a complaint to the nodal officer of the mobile company. The have also appellate forum.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 10 January 2014
Practically you have got no alternate for immediate relief, use services of another service provider.
Send them Registered notice including all the person whom you have talked.
If in mood to adopt costly and time consuming process, move to civil court and your claim would be decided on merits.
Most consumer courts are reluctant to interfere in these disputes since the Supreme Court ruled in 2009 that consumer interests are protected by the Indian Telegraph Act 1885, and 'remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred'. Under section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act, consumers can approach the civil court .
ajay sethi
(Expert) 10 January 2014
agree with experts
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 10 January 2014
>> Shri Rajendra K Goyal has advised for civil suite. It is felt that if merits are there in the case civil suite with damages may be certainly more rewarding.
>> The Supreme Court Judgment is probably one of the most mis interpreted by the lawyers of the telecom companies.
Hence the National Commission has recently also decided the consumer cases involving telecom companies.
State Commission, DCDRF have also decided the consumer cases involving telecom companies and in fact the Dist. Consumer Forums in judgments delivered by them have explained in detail that “Consumer Courts can settle telecom Cases”.
All of these establish that “Consumer Courts can settle telecom Cases”.
e.g;
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
Sh. Arvind Singla s/o Sh. Pawan Kumar Singla r/o House No.2106, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh.
….…Complainant
V E R S U S
1. VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD., having its Head office at Punjab at C-131, Eltop industrial Area, Phase-VIII, Mohali 160071.
2. Tele Link Communications having its office at Booth No.22, Near Cricket Stadium, Phase-10, Mohali.
>>>BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR
Shamsher Singh Kaholan son of Bakshish Singh C/o Baba Autos, Moga Road, Opposite B.S.F. Head Quarter, Ferozepur Cantt.
........ Complainant
Versus
1. Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.
2. Deepika Negi, Customer Care Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh.
>> STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,PUNJAB,CHANDIGARH
SPICE COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD.
VS
GURINDER KAUR AND ANR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT
MRS. AMNAPREET SHARMA, MEMBER
FIRST APPEAL NUMBER 1172 OF 2009
PUBLISHED IN CONSUMER PRTECTION AND TRADE JOURNAL 2010 PAGE 688
" MOBILE SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NEITHER GOVERNED BY SECTION 7-B OF THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH ACT,1885 NOR THE JURISDICTION OF THE CONSUMER FORUM OVER THEM IS OUSTED,RATHER IT GETS PROTECTED."
ORDER
>>> NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 2775 OF 2007
Vodafone Essar South Ltd
Formerly Known as Hutchison Essar South Ltd
6th Floor, Varun Towers II Petitioner
Begumpet, Hyderabad
Represented by its Manager
Vs
Arvind Reddy Respondent
Son of K. Purushotham Reddy
Resident of 5-66, Buddhanagar Colony
Uppal, Hyderabad
>> We have recently learnt from an NGO that some of the judgments delivered by High Courts also decide that:
“Consumer Courts can settle telecom Cases”.
It was learnt that Delhi High Court has has passed a judgment that complaints of consumers of mobile telecom companies can be lodged in consumer forums and consumer forums can decide such consumer cases. However the name of company etc is not confirmed. If any one can provide it this shall be helpful.
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Re-Delhi-hc-quot-consumer-court-can-decide-mobile-phone-consumercase-51892.asp#.UlEbItKAqWM
The learned experts are requested to share the judgments delivered by High Courts.
>> There are threads at LCI that have discussed this matter in detail and at length e.g;
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/consumer-complaint-against-telecom-service-provider-punjab-c-432186.asp
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/details.asp?mod_id=33211&offset=1#.UlFTutKAqWM
>> . Supreme Court of India judgment may also be gone thru;
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Gurnam Kaur on 12 September, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 38, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 929
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/327169/?type=print
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 10 January 2014
Sec 13 (3-B) of Consumer Protection Act amended in 2002 allows interim order leading to injunction.
Your lawyer may opine that this is one option that can be perused.
You may find another thread as relevant:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Injunction-in-consumer-court-case-94326.asp#.UtAbedIW1MB
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 11 January 2014
Thanks expert Kumar Doab ji for nicely elaborating and correcting my advise.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 11 January 2014
>> Shri Rajendra K Goyal ji,
Sir,
You have rightly advised for civil suite. It is reiterate that if merits are there in the case civil suite or criminal case with damages may be certainly more rewarding.
However majority of the consumers/complainants/citizens are wary of courts and do not agitate.
This emboldens the offender companies.
Some determined customers and determined lawyers are sufficient to teach such offenders in the telecom companies and telecom companies a fitting lesson.
Lacs and Lacs of innocent customers have been fleeced and looted and harassed by these Telecom Companies.
As far as the judgment of Supreme Court of India mentioned in this thread any NGO, lawyer, Consumer needs to file ‘Review Petition’ in Supreme Court, as the judgment has been grossly misinterpreted by lawyers of Telecom Companies and the Supreme Court of India could have taken a notice of it..............................
The Decision of State Commission is self explanatory and can be accessed at the link below the judgment.
Even in case of BSNL the DCDRF has decided the case in penalizing BSNL in as recent as 2010 after the Supreme Court judgement.
>>First Appeal No.1172 of 2009
(Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gurinder Kaur and another) http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/120FA-1172-09.pdf
26. Since the dispute of the private service providers with their individual
consumer does not fall in the scope of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act,
1885, therefore, the private service providers cannot avail the benefit of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Krishnan & another’s case (supra).
27. In view of the discussion held above, it is held that the private service
providers are not covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.
Krishnan & another’s case (supra) and the consumers/customers have the right to
challenge the actions of the private service providers by filing complaints under
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
>> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
QUORUM
President : Shri Sanjay Garg
Member : S. Tarlok Singh
C.C. No.494 of 2010
Date of Institution:8.9.2010
Date of Decision: 20.12.2010
Raman Kumar, aged 35 years, son of Ram Partap, resident of Village Khui Khera, Tehsil Fazilka, District Ferozepur.
........ Complainant
Versus
G.M. (T), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Ferozepur-152001.
........ Opposite party
http://dcffzr.gov.in/html/4942010.html
In this case also, the complainant lodged several complaints with the call centre of the opposite party regarding wrongful deduction of charges from his account and he was even provided docket number of the complaints, but all his complaints fell on deaf ears. The amounts wrongly deducted from his account have been credited into his account only after filing of the present complaint. Under the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the telephone service providers, including the BSNL and MTNL, are required to establish a call centre for the redressal of the complaints of the consumers. After lodging of the complaint, the said call centres are required to redress the grievance of the consumer within four weeks from the lodging of the complaint. Admittedly, the opposite party BSNL, despite lodging of different complaints by the complainant, failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and the complainant per force has to file the present complaint, which proves not only deficiency in service, but also unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Though the telecom service providers are on looting spree of the consumers at large, but since the complainant is individual consumer, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as consolidated compensation for adopting unfair trade practice and for mental agony, pain and harassment suffered by the complainant. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the
C.C. No.494 of 2010 \\39//
complainant as litigation expenses. Orders be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
>> As far as case of the querist Mr. Chopra is concerned it is Gross violation of rules set by TRAI.....................as the company's officials have been sleeping on the matter and have not resolved.
It is also felt that Mr. Chopra Has not escalated his complaint properly and should have escalated to Nodal Officer, Appellate Authority.............
He may log onto TRAI website and go thru :
Consumers’ Handbook on Telecommunications
Frequently Asked Questions - Complaint
Consumer Protection Guidelines
asha rani singh
(Querist) 11 January 2014
sir
Thank u all for ur response.
I have already written to nodal as well as appellate and when I did not get any satisfactory answer from them also they offered me 30 % on the balance amount ,I decided to meet someone in person in appellate and have done that. I have been assured better deal in next 2 days.should I accept their offer without any fault of mine and after all this harresment???????????? Pl guide.
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 11 January 2014
You need not accept the offer, which you are not convinced.
You can approach the civil court for suitable remedy.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 11 January 2014
Since you have posted that NO one from the company has replied to your written representations, it is believed all such so called offers are made to you verbally and nothing is on record.
Haven’t they issued even a complaint number so far?
How would you prove the Verbal transactions...................
Did you minute the discussion you had in person with someone in Appellate Authority, in writing under proper acknowledgment?
Kindly follow the advise of Mr. Goyal, Mr. Arunagiri.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 13 January 2014
Expert Mr. Kumar Doab's advise on the subject as well as the information he provided here will go a long way for all those who have been victimised by the telecom companies and have been escaping the consumer protection law under the pretext or umbrella of Supreme court judgment may be taught a lesson. Thank you sir for the valuable info.
asha rani singh
(Querist) 13 January 2014
sir they have given me a complaint no which I have mentioned in my letter to this forum.
Yes u r absolutely right all such offers r made on phone and nothing is on record.If u read my letter I have discussed about one such incidence where someone told me to " since u have already paid 15000/- out of 18000/- we are waving off rest amount ..pl pay 845/- and we will reactivate ur services..............I immediately paid 845/- through net banking but in spite of that my ph was not activated and when I enquired I was told no ist not possible and there is no reply about the person who had offered me this............
No I only spoke to Appellate in person and they reactivated my ph and asked me to give them 3-4 days time so they can talk to GM and give reply.
There is nothing in writing.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 13 January 2014
A lot has been discussed and shared in this thread.
Chase, tame and shame them.
All calls by the company are recorded and you may demand call log data and call recordings.
While dealing with such companies either communicate in writing or record all such calls and thereafter mention names and demand the offer be supplied in writing.
Now your phone has been re activated and you may narrate all incidences mentioning dates, phone numbers, names and thus put everything in writing and demand the resolution that you want, and get the waiver.
Your lawyer would know how to handle your issues.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 26 August 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 865 OF 2013
(Against the Order dated 13/12/2012 in Appeal No. 154/2012 of the State Commission
Maharastra)
1. RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD. & ANR.
MAHARAJA RANJEET SINGH MARG,
NEW DELHI ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. BEENA MENON
R/O A-303 VAIBHAV TOWER SHANTI PARK
LAYOUT, MIRA ROAD (E)
THANE - 401107
MAHARASTRA
2. BOMBAY TELEPHONE USERS' ASSOCIATION
- ...........Respondent(s)
Dated : 19 Nov 2014
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The key question which falls for consideration is, whether, the consumer fora have the jurisdiction to try and decide the disputes relating to excess telephone billing and whether, there lies a rub in exercising its jurisdiction in view of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
2. All the cases entail similar facts and the same questions of law. We will decide the above detailed cases through this common judgment. The learned counsel for the OPs, namely, Reliance Communications Ltd., Maharashtra Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd., has placed reliance on the celebrated authority reported in General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishna & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 7687 of 2004, decided on 01.09.2009, wherein it was held, as under :-
“In our opinion when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act reads as under:-
"S. 7B Arbitration of Disputes :-
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided in 3 this Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this Section.
(2) The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-s. (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court.
Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. A telephone connection can be disconnected by the Telegraph Authority for default of payment under Rule 443 of the Rules.
It is well settled that the special law overrides the general law. Hence, in our opinion the High Court was not correct in its approach”.
3. We are of the considered view that this authority is not applicable to the present cases. In Fair Air Engineers (P) Ltd. Vs. N.K. Modi (1996) 6 SCC 385, it was held, as under :-
“Considered from this perspective, we hold that though the District Forum, State Commission and National Commission are judicial authorities, for the purpose of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, in view of the object of the Act and by operation of Section 3 thereof, we are of the considered view that it would be appropriate that these forums created under the Act are at liberty to proceed with the matters in accordance with the provisions of the Act rather than relegating the parties to an arbitration proceedings pursuant to a contract entered into between the parties. The reason is that Act intends to relieve the consumers of the cumbersome arbitration proceedings or civil action unless the forums on their own and on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the particular case, come to the conclusion that the appropriate forum for adjudication of the disputes would be otherwise those given in the Act”.
-2-
4. In Appeal (civil) 4965 of 2000,
Kishore Lal Vs. Chairman, Employees State Insurance Corporation, decided by a larger
Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 08.05.2007,
the Hon’ble Apex Court, after having considered the provisions of the State Insurance Act, 1948, the Hon’ble Apex Court 17 of its judgment, it has observed that it has been held in numerous cases of this Court that the jurisdiction of a consumer forum has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. In the case of
M/s. Spring Meadows Hospital and Another v. Harjol Ahluwalia and Another, AIR
1998 SC 1801
, it was held that the CP Act creates a framework for speedy disposal of consumer disputes and an attempt has been made to remove the existing evils of the ordinary court system. The Act being a beneficial legislation should receive a liberal construction. We are of the considered view that same ratio will be applicable to these cases.
5. Moreover, the above said Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1948, under any of the circumstances, could not have been invoked, as it provides that any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arising between Telegraph Authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is provided shall be determined by an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. All the OPs above named, do not come within the definition of ‘Telegraph Authority’, within the meaning of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.
6. In view of the above said definition, the petitioners/OPs cannot be said to be ‘telegraph authority’. Consequently, there lies no rub in invoking the jurisdiction of the consumer fora.
7. The ‘telegraph authority’ has been defined in the Finance Act, 1994 and it includes a person who has been granted a licence under the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the above said Act. In para 11 of the judgment of the State Commission dated 06.11.2012, rendered by the Bench headed by Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.B.Mhase, it was held, as under :-
“Learned Counsel for the complainants and Authorised Representative of the Intervener invited our attention stating that said letter has not been issued by Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs, but it has been issued by Director Phones (E) on behalf of the Telegraph Authority-Director General, Telecommunications, Department of telecommunications and thus, submitted that this letter has not been issued by the Telegraph Authority as defined under Section 3(6) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, it cannot be used to say that MTNL or the MTNL officers are the Telegraph Authority. It is further to be noted that our attention has been also brought to the order passed in Writ Petition No.7824/2005 which was in respect of Bharati Tele-Ventures Limited, one of the Licensees under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the Bombay High Court has observed in Para 40 that the Licensee does not step in the shoes of the telegraph authority under the said Act. Being so, even though the tower and/or cabin can be called as a “post” as defined under Section 3(5) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, that itself will not absolve the Licensee from complying with the requirements of the provisions of law under the MRTP Act and the BPMC Act. The delegation of power under Section 19B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to the Licensees is not to the extent of extending the powers of the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 to the Licensees. In the said judgment, the Bombay High Court has observed after having considered the order of delegation of powers issued in favour of Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. that the delegation is absolutely limited to the extent of “seeking way-leave” from the private owners to place and maintain telephone lines and to enter such properties for that purpose and thus, after interpreting said order, the Bombay High Court has come to the conclusion that there is nothing in the order to constitute the Bharti Tele-Ventures Ltd. to say that they are telegraph authority”.
8. In a recent authority, the Delhi High Court in J
.K. Mittal Vs. Union of India & Ors.
W.P.(C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.21319/2010
decided on 06.02.2012
, his Lordship, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipin Sanghi, was pleased to hold, as under :
“
-3-
the impugned order dated 02.09.2010 passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained, as it erroneously holds that the consumer complaint of the petitioner was barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act. It is clear that the respondent no.2 is not a telegraph authority. The bar under Section 7B, if at all, could have applied, had the dispute arisen between the petitioner and a telegraph authority, which the respondent no.2 is not. Merely because respondent No. 2 is a licensee under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, it does not confer on it the status of a telegraph authority. It was held that the petitioner’s consumer claim is maintainable before the District Forum. The District Forum is, therefore, directed to entertain and consider the said claim on its merits”.
9. The gamut of all these facts, circumstances and arguments lean on the side of the consumers/complainants. There lies no rub in filing the complaint, before the consumer fora. All the revision petitions, filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed. Stay, if granted, stands vacated.
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. S.M. KANTIKAR
MEMBER
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/files/48136_20160826081016_910347486_judgement2014_11_19.pdf
