MANAGER, BPL MOBILE CELLULAR LTD. vs ASIF SHAUKAT QURESHI

THIS revision petition is filed against the order dated 15.7.2003 in First Appeal 1190/2002 by State Commission, Maharashtra dismissing the petitioner''s appeal. The complaint filed by Asif Qureshi in Original Petition No. 60/2002 in District Forum, Nagpur was allowed and petitioners were directed to refund back the amount of the bills which they have received from the complainant for a period of 7 months from January, 2001 till July, 2002 towards incoming calls and held deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the BPL Mobile Cellular Ltd., Managing Director and the Branch Manager.

BRIEF facts of the case are : The respondent/original complainant was the subscriber of the petitioner company since 4.12.1998. The revision petitioner BPL Mobile Company is dealing in Cellular business which launched various plans to the benefit of its customers. In July, 2001 BPL Company has introduced a plan known as "Plan 0601" by which it offered to its customers monthly rent of Rs. 950/- along with incoming calls free for initial 12 billing cycles. The said plan was introduced to new customers and also gave the option open to its existing customers to merge in Free Incoming Plan on request. Mr. Qureshi responded to this offer and accepted and signed the subscription form in the month of November, 1998. As per this case the petitioner had increased the mobile charges to Rs. 950/- from the existing rate of Rs. 600/- and offered unlimited incoming free service. Qureshi received a bill for a period 2.12.2001 to 1.1.2002 for an amount of Rs. 1,568/- towards incoming calls and he was shocked to be charged for inspite of having opted for free incoming calls. Thereafter when he enquired it was revealed that BPL Company had changed the plan of "Free Incoming Plan" to "400 Incoming Minutes Plan". Aggrieved by this bill Mr. Qureshi approached District Forum claiming for relief of free incoming calls for further 7 months or refund of the amount which he had paid towards the bill raised by the petitioners for incoming calls along with compensation and costs. We have perused the records of the case and heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Although both the parties were present in District Forum, in State Commission both were absent in spite of being present on the earlier date and were aware of the next date of hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner brought to our notice that after launching "0601 incoming Free Plan", the Company received many complaints from large number of its subscribers/customers regarding congestion in network due to heavy usage hence the petitioner has decided to modify the said 0601 incoming Free" Plan to "Value 400" Plan considering the interest of customers at large and to avoid the heavy congestion in network and with the view of providing uninterrupted smooth services and hence the petitioner company has taken this decision. It is further submitted that by introducing Value 400 Plan and merging 0601 Free Incoming Plan the petitioner company had lowered the monthly rent by Rs. 150/- p.m. and fixed it to Rs. 800/- instead of Rs. 950/- p.m. and offered first 400 minutes incoming calls absolutely free. They further contended that the free facilities like mobile answer phone, call waiting and mobile roaming were pointed by the petitioners to the customers including the respondent Mr. Qureshi. They further contended that the petitioner had taken this decision only in the interest of their customers and also submitted that they kept their rights reserved regarding modifying of any of its plan/tariff at any time with/without intimation to the customer and that said condition was accepted and agreed by the respondent. They further contended the important question whether petitioners are entitled to modify the plan; whether signing of terms and conditions create a contract the parties and said contract is binding on the parties; and whether modification of plans under intimation to customer amounts to deficiency of service; and whether the petitioners have issued intimation letter regarding change of plan to respondent.

We have gone through petitioner''s submission regarding the amendment of the scheme which is according to them beneficial to the customers and these attractive plans have been offered to the subscribers and this cannot be an unfair trade practice and there is no finding of deficiency in service and terms and conditions of the subscription form were not properly considered by both the Fora. We find that this scheme was for the period of one year and the respondent was at liberty to opt for any other scheme is being given an option to change from the present status to another scheme. Although BPL Company has submitted that change of schemes were to the advantage of subscribers, we find the only issue which has to be decided whether they have informed the subscribers as to the change of schemes to make them aware of the future billing and allowed the options to subscribers. After taking the consent of the subscribers for the particular scheme they cannot unilaterally change it to another scheme without giving prior intimation to the subscribers. The petitioners'' letter dated 13th November, 2001 to the subscribers which has been brought to our notice giving a new offer and the said offer was ending by 28th November, 2001 for the subscribers to decide and for transferring the subscription to value Rs. 400/- from the next billing cycle i.e. 2nd December, 2001. The receipt of this letter is under challenge by Mr. Qureshi and on our query as to whether this letter was really sent to Mr. Qureshi and whether petitioners could produce UPC, the petitioners could not give any information of proof of posting this letter.

IN the District Forum it was held against them that the said letter was never sent to the respondent. IN our view it is considered as deficiency in service on the part of BPL Company for "Attractive Plan" from one month to another month, from one type to another type without giving prior notice and option for subscribers not letting them know what is being charged for the next coming months. District Forum has rightly held that BPL Company to be deficient in services and directed the refund of the amount during the period of dispute. The concurrent view taken by both the Fora has been based on correct appraisal and appreciation of materials on record. We are not inclined to interfere and exercise our revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act and since there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. The revision petition is dismissed with the slight modification that cost of 2,000/- be paid to the respondent since no interest and cost has been awarded by Fora below. Revision Petition dismissed.