Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 27
Instituted on : 11.01.2021.
Decided on : 05.05.2022.
Khileshwar Vij son of Sh. Prem Parkash Vij (aged 35 years) resident of H.No.160F/23, DLF Colony, Circular Road, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant. Vs.
- Airtel Care Centre D Park Model Town, Rohtak.
- Airtel, White Home Opposite Yes Bank Civil Road, Rohtak.
- The Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd.(Corporate Office) 6th Floor Interface Building No.7, New Link Road, Malad West 400095-Mumbai.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh. Jaiveer Singh Advocate for opposite party No.2 & 3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is using the Airtel SIM of opposite parties. But since October 2020 the SIM is not working properly and the network of SIM is dead. The above said SIM is postpaid SIM and the complainant had paid the bill amount regularly and nothing is due against him. Complainant contacted the customer care for rectifying the SIM problem but the officials of customer Care Centre stated that the complainant should approach the Service Centre of the opposite party to rectify the problem of SIM. Complainant contacted the service centre and they demanded Aadhar Card/original Identity proof to rectify the SIM and stated that there will be no charge to fix the problem. But when the complainant deposited the Aadhar Card with the opposite party, they demanded Rs.30/- to fix the problem. But complainant has not paid the demanded amount as the opposite parties has denied to issue the slip/receipt to the complainant. After sometime, the SIM in question has not been working properly and it seems that the SIM in question has been closed by the Service Centre of opposite party. Due to non functioning of SIM, the complainant has suffered a huge loss as the complainant could not hear nor make calls on his mobile phone. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to issue the new SIM of the same Number of the Airtel company and to pay Rs. 50000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and financial loss and Rs.50000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2 . After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back with the report of refusal and opposite party no.1 did not appear on the date fixed and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 23.02.2021 of his Commission. Opposite party No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their written reply submitting therein that complainant cannot be said to be a consumer of answering opposite party as is evident from the Number Portability Gateway (NPG) where it is evident that number always belonged to Reliance Jio Haryana. Further no deficiency in service can be attributed to the answering opposite party. It is further submitted that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. Complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering opposite party and he is not entitled to any relief claimed.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 & Ex.C2 and closed his evidence on dated 29.09.2021. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.D1, document Ex.D2 and has closed his evidence on 08.12.2021.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is observed that as per the bills Ex.C2(two pages) complainant is consumer of opposite party having Airtel No.9729411786 and the bills are for the period 08.04.2018 and 09.07.2015 respectively. As per the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the alleged SIM was not working since October 2020 due to network issue and complainant complained about the same to the opposite party to rectify the same. But the same was not done despite his repeated requests and the opposite party demanded Rs.30/- for the same, whereas it is the duty of the opposite parties to update the services of their company and to rectify the network issues. Opposite parties have not placed on record any document to prove that to rectify the network issues, any amount is chargeable from the consumer. It is also on record that at the time of filing the present complaint i.e. 11.01.2021 the SIM of the complainant was not working and as per copy of messages placed on record Ex.C1, opposite party has demanded Rs.25/- for Sim Change. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 did not appear before this Commission despite service and as such it is presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter and therefore, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding not operating the SIM of complainant and illegally demanding of Rs.25/- by the opposite parties stands
proved. However, this amount was not paid by the complainant and the SIM of the complainant was restored free of cost by the opposite parties as per order of this Commission dated 10.02.2021. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite parties no.2 & 3 being the service providing company is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 & 3 to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.2 & 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) from the date of decision i.e. 05.05.2022 till its realization to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.05.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………….
Shyam Lal, Member.
