Date of Filing:16/02/2016
Date of Order: 19/01/2018
BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27.
Dated:19th DAY OF JANUARY 2018
PRESENT
SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, B.Sc., B.Ed., LL.B., PRESIDENT
SRI.H.JANARDHAN,B.A.L, LL.B., MEMBER
SMT.BHARATI.B.VIBHUTE, B.E(I.P.) LL.B., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.263/2016
COMPLAINANT/S | | |
| 1 | Mr. Abhishek Bajpai, S/o Raj Narayan, Hindu, Aged about 37 years, Residing at No.1105, Marigold, Golden Blossom Apartment, Opp. Saibaba Ashram, Kadugodi, Whitefield, Bengaluru-560 067. (By Sri SPK Adv. for Complainant) |
V/s
OPPOSITE PARTY/IES | | |
| 1 | The Regional Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Prestige Technology Park, Jupiter 2A Block, Sarjapura- Marathalli Ring Road, Kadabeesanahalli, Barthur Hobli, Benglauru-560 087. |
| 2 | The Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited Head Office located at Unitech World, Cyber Park, Sector-39, Tower-A, 4th Floor, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana. |
| 3 | The chairman and Managing Director, Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent, No.1, Nelson Mandela Road, New Delhi 110 070. (O.Ps - Exparte) |
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to refund the amount of Rs. 1,06,567/- along with interest at the rate of 12% pa from the date of disconnection i.e. from 16-02-2010 till its realization and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- along with the cost of Rs.20,000/-
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant by availing the service of O.Ps had taken the internet connection and land line connection from the Ist O.P and the O.Ps also provided the I.D number 13975510 for the period from 16-09-2008 to 18-02-2010. It is stated that the complainant discontinued the broad band connection as he had shift his residence and thereby intimated the same to the customer care Executive in Bangalore and surrendered the landline telephone number and accordingly the services were discontinued from March 2010 itself. Further states that when the complainant had to availed the home loan he had to furnish 6 months bank statement which was provided by his CITI Bank wherein he was shocked to see that ECS deductions were made by the O.Ps ever after disconnection and immediately he instructed his bank to stop ECS deductions and sought the details of the ECS debit details and the CITI Bank has provided the details vide their letter. Further stated that after disconnection of the said connection and I.D number allotted to the another person by name Mr. Ashish Goyal but the O.Ps despite the disconnection made deductions from the complainants account and hence alleged that O.Ps adopted the unfair trade practice. Further stated that the complainant lodged the complaints regarding the deductions in question with the O.Ps authorities but the O.Ps did not responded to the complainant but they only given the evasive replies. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of the notice for the reasons best known to the O.Ps but they did not appeared before the Forum to answer the claim made by the complainant and consequently we proceeded to place exparte.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and complainant filed his affidavit evidence and we also heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the following points will arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(B) Whether the complainants have proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(C) Whether the complainants are entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(D) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) : In the Affirmative.
POINT (B) & (C): In the Negative.
POINT (D): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(A):-
7. On perusing the complaint averments and the documentary evidence placed on record it is the specific case of the complainant is that he had taken the broadband and land line connection from the O.Ps for the period from 16-09-2008 to 18-02-2010. It is specifically alleged that on account of shifting of the residence of complainant and he asked the O.Ps to disconnect the service and accordingly O.Ps disconnected the service and the same connection was given to some other person. Further alleged that after disconnection O.Ps in unauthorized way deducted the amount from his account through ECS and the complainant came to know when has taken the statement in the month of March 2015 at the time availing home loan.
8. It is pertinent to note that as per the saying of the complainant he had taken the broad band and land line connection from the O.Ps for the period of 16-09-2008 to 18-02-2010 and shifted the residence and got disconnected the service of the O.Ps. The very filing of the complainant to redress the grievances only after 6 years. Further the law will not lend its helping hand to those whoever slept over their rights. Furthermore the complainant did not filed any separate delay condonation application and failed to satisfactorily explain the reasons to overcome the delay. Hence in our view the claim of the complainant is hopelessly barred by limitation. Accordingly we answered the Point No (A) in the affirmative.
POINT No.(B) & (C):
9. It is worth to note that though O.Ps placed exparte it is the duty of the complainant to establish his case within legal purview by placing all cogent evidence and the judgment is not automatic. Further complainant did not say anything why he was not verified his account since 2010 about the deductions and not placed any kind of evidence to substantiate the case of the complainant.
10. Further the complainant also produced the copies of communications made to the O.Ps and also the copy of legal notice dated 19-08-2015. The position of law is very clear that the service of legal notice will not automatically extend the limitation.
11. On perusal of the affidavit evidence we did not find any credible and cogent evidence to hold that O.Ps are deficient in their service. In our view complainant failed prove deficiency in service and hence he not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered these points (B) and (C) in the Negative.
POINT (D):
12. On the basis of answering the Points (A) to (C) in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19th Day of January 2018)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
