Date of Filing: 28-02-2018

Date of Order: 29.10.2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Shri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Shri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,   MEMBER

On this the  Friday  the 29^th day, of October, 2020

C.C.No. 114 /2018

Between      

   Mrs. Hemlatha Rati W/o Sunil Kumar Rathi,

M/s. Soul Beauty and wellness center,

Chief executive Officer,

Up, 4^th Floor, Road No.3,

Near TV 9 Office, Uptown, Banjarahills,

Hyderabad-500034 

                                                                                                                       ….Complainant

And

1. Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal,

Chairman

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Registered Office: Bharti Crescent, 1,

Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj,

Phase II, New Delhi – 110 070

2. Mr. Gopal Vittal,

Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Registered Office: Bharti Crescent-1,

Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj Phase II,

New Delhi – 110070

3. M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Head Office : Unitech World Cyber Park,

Sector-39. Tower A, 4^th Floor,

Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana.k

4. Bharti Airtel Limited Enterprise,

# 6-3-1192/1,7^th Floor, Block-3,

White House, Kunda Bagh,

Begumpetm, Hyderabad-500016

                 ….Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner                              : K. Srikanth

Counsel for the Opposite parties 1 to 4      : Gopi Rajesh

O R D E R

(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MEMBER on behalf of the bench)

1.            The above complaint has been filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 making allegations against the opposite parties as to the deficiency in services rendered and adoption of unfair trade practice on their part in relation there to with a prayer to direct  the opposite parties to refund the unscrupulously  charged amount of Rs. 800/-,(Rupees eight hundred only)  to pay compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, (Rupees two lakhs only)costs of litigation for Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) and such other orders as the District Forum  deems fit and proper.

2.            The Complainant states that she has been using Mobile with contract number 9346065095 issued and being maintained by the opposite parties. Prior to undertaking proposed intending Europe journey as scheduled and she on contacting the customer care of the above Opposite Parties and on whose advice, got her above number recharged with Rs. 3,999/- (Rupees three thousand Nine hundred ninety nine only) with an intention to have uninterpreted services to her stated contact number during her above journey to  abroad. During her above journey, she alleges that the  opposite Parties  have wrongfully charged amount of Rs.670+130=Rs.800/- against the heads of Aeromobile charges,  which  is stated that opposite parties ought not to have charged the same as she got her  above contract number charged with smart pack of Rs. 3,999/-(Rupees three thousand Nine hundred ninety nine only), which is stated to have included unlimited roaming charges etc., She further states that many of her requests made to the opposite parties to refund the above wrongfully charged amount went invain. As the issued legal notices to opposite parties did not get any reply, she consequently filed the complainant with a prayer to grant reliefs as stated supra.

3.            The opposite parties  resisted the complaint by filing the written  version denying the allegations made in the complaint. The opposite parties have specifically denied using of the stated contact number being maintained  by them  for the alleged period of last five to Six years. The opposite parties have  further  denied the usage of the said contract number during her  journey  to the Europe  for  her personal purpose and also her contract with  them for knowing the best plan for activation of international roaming to her stated contact number.

               The opposite parties have further denied that  the complainant contracted their customer care for activation of smart pack @ Rs.3,999/- -(Rupees three thousand Nine hundred ninety nine only)  for International roaming and getting services of unlimited incoming calls in addition to her regular monthly rental plan of Rs. 1199/-  excluding taxes. The opposite parties have further stated that it is incorrect on the part of the complainant to state that they have levied the “ Aeromobile  charges ” for Rs.670/-  and Rs. 130/-  = Rs.800/- used as on 02-05-2017 and 03-05-2017 with a duration volume of 685464 & 123500 for 67 pulses  and 13 pulses respectively and her obtaining smart pack of Rs. 3,999/-(Rupees three thousand Nine hundred ninety nine only)  as per their tendered advice. The opposite have  further stated that as per the clause 13 of the terms,  the benefits of the offer are not applicable for premium rate numbers/ Maritime/Satellite/Aero Mobile/ship Cruise or Immarsat. In the light of stated facts, they state that the complaint filed  do not fall within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Any issues related to billing need to be brought to be opposite parties within 60 days of the generation of the bill which is stated to have been bill invoice,  for resolution. Informing  the opposite parties over phone about the above problem for which she has demanded to send  an e-mail along with Flight ticket to cross check the details and the  complainant;s sending e-mail dated 30-05-2017 along with details for necessary correction of imposed erroneous charges is also stated to have been incorrect. Complaint’s entitlement for compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) and for costs is also denied as such prayed for dismissal for the complaint with exemplary costs.   

4.            During the course of enquiry, the documents filed along with evidence affidavit of the complainant have been got marked as Exs. A1 to A9 to support her claim but  One Mr. Snigodha Ghosal, Power of Attorney holder of opposite parties has filed evidence affidavit on behalf of Opposite Parties.  Later, there is no representation on behalf of all the opposite parties on several occasions. Consequently, on 06-01-2020, it has been recorded as “ No representation for opposite parties. Hence, treated as no documents for Ops”. The Complainant has got filed written arguments. But on the part of the opposite parties, on 26-02-2020 it has been recorded as “Written arguments not filed, no representation for opposite parties 1 to 4. Hence treated as no written arguments”.  Memo filed by the complainant requesting the Forum to consider her written arguments as oral arguments has been conceded and recorded as “ taken on record ” on 05.08.2020.

5.            Heard the counsel for both the parties, perused the material brought on record and for arrival of just conclusion, the following points have emerged for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant could make out a case against the
     Opposite Parties in  regards to alleged deficiency in service and
     adoption of Unfair Trade Practice ?

 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for.?

 3. To what extent. ?      

5.1 :

Ex.A1, bill for mobile service charges issued by the opposite parties shows the inclusive charges for Rs. 3,999/ -(Rupees three thousand Nine hundred ninety nine only)  towards a smart package of International roaming charges and for unlimited  incoming calls for 30 days pack with a validity from 17-04-2017 to 16-09-2017 for Rs. 8312.12. In the 5^th page of said bill, charging of Rs. 670+130 totaling to Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Only) again during the said period is shown, which is highly objectionable, unreasonable and arbitrary causing lot of inconvenience, loss and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant  paid  the above amounts, which evidences payment of smart pack and unreasonable additional amount charged for Rs.800/-. Thus, the complainant adduced her claim by producing Ex.A5, Ex.A2 the Broacher issued by the opposite parties, which clearly show that the smart pack block-B details  of us International Roaming @ 3,999/- (Rupees Three Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Nine Only) unlimited incoming 30 days pack. The demand of the complainant to return additionally charged amount of Rs. 800/- (Rupees Eight Hundred Only) is justifiable and non payment of the same by the opposite parties  amounts to deficiency in service apart from adoption of unfair trade practice on their part.

In view of our above findings, we hereby fasten liability to  the Opposite Parties 1 to 4.. Thus this point is answered in favour of the complainant and against the above Opposite Parties 1 to 4.

5.2  Keeping our above discussion and finding in view the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as granted under point no.5.3, below.     

5.3   In the result, the compliant is allowed in part. The opposite parties1 to 4 are directed to

1. return Rs.800/- (Rupees Eight hundred only) together with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till actual realization;
2. pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony; and
3. pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards litigation costs ,

jointly and severally,  to the complainant written 45 days  from the date of receipt of this order failing which, except costs , the above amounts shall attract interest @12% P.A from the date of lapse of above period.

      Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 29^th day of  October, 2020.

   MEMBER                                                                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

NIL

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 -  Copy of mobile service Bill, dated 18.05.2017.

Ex.A2 – Copy of smart pack block B-details [Broacher-Xerox].

Ex.A3 – Copy of Flight Ticket, Dated 18-03-2017.

Ex.A4 – Copy of Reply E-mail, Dated 30-05.2017.

Ex.A5 – Copy of Bill payment Receipt [Bharath Airtel Limited] Dt.05-
             06-2017.

Ex.A6 – Copy of Registered Lawyer Notice, dated 21-08-2017.

Ex.A7 – Copy of Original Post Receipts, dated 24-08-2017.

Ex.A8 – Copy of Postal Acknowledgement –Original-1

Ex.A9 – Copy of Postal Acknowledgement –Original-2

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

Nil

MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT