Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/814/2017

Ankur Soni - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel DTH Nodal Office - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhbir Singh

11 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/814/2017
Date of Institution	:	17/11/2017
Date of Decision	:	11/01/2019

 

Ankur Soni son of Shri Arvind Kumar Soni, resident of #124, Sector 10-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Airtel DTH Nodal Office, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101, through its Manager.

2.     Managing Director DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd.), Airtel Centre, Plot No.16, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurgaon (Haryana) 122001.

3.     Guru Nanak Radios, Booth No.76, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh through its owner Satish Thappar.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                    

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	OP-3 ex-parte.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations in brief are, complainant on 6.3.2017 had purchased Airtel digital TV connection bearing ID No.3022057241 from OP-3 on behalf of OPs 1 & 2.  On 8.4.2017 complainant changed his plan to my plan 199 super-1 M pack which was duly informed by OPs and it was activated and monthly rent was Rs.99/-. Maintained, recently the complainant was going to recharge his account @Rs.298/- per month as being done in previous months but he was informed the current monthly charges were Rs.349/-.  On being asked how monthly charges escalated from Rs.298/- to Rs.349/- the complainant was told that he had opted for the pack of Rs.349/- on telephone.  Complaints were made, no such request was made, but, the official of OPs informed, it was done by the outsourced person and they had not maintained the record. Hence, the complainant alleged unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and thereby prayed to restore the original plan; pay damages to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service alongwith Rs.50,000/- as litigation charges.
2.         OPs 1 & 2 had filed their joint reply and, inter alia, raised preliminary objections of present consumer complaint being not maintainable and no cause of action. On merits, claimed that the plan was changed and hiked from Rs.298/- to Rs.349/- as per the request of the complainant.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-3 did not appear despite due service and allowed itself to be proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.2.2018. On 9.7.2018, OPs 1 & 2 did not appear and were proceeded against ex-parte.  Later on, OPs 1 & 2 joined subsequent proceedings and they had already filed reply and evidence. 
4.         Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5.         Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.  After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, the apple of discord is whether the relevant plan of the complainant was changed on the request of the complainant from Rs.298/- to Rs.349/- or the OPs did it of their own?  The OPs had failed to produce on record any data of such call having been made by the complainant to them for the change of plan.  Except for mere saying, no documentary record placed on the file on behalf of the OPs.
8.         The complainant in his evidence produced on record conversation between him as well employees of the OPs on 5.10.2017 at 11:09 a.m. It was found that its version has been placed on record which shows the complainant questioned the switching over/hike of the plan on his request and on this the employee of the OPs had told that it was done by outsourced persons who were employed by them. No such record was produced that there was any such request.  The plan has been changed by the OPs for their own personal gain without any request to that effect from the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice.  We hold so.
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately restore the desired package of the complainant;
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for unfair trade practice on their part.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him;
4. To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) & (iii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of other directions.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/01/2019	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President