Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/321/2022

Oumsh verma S/o Sh Achru parsad - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Head Office - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Thakur

20 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISISON, KURUKSHETRA

Complaint No. 321 of 2022

Date of institution: 15.09.2022

                                Date of decision: 20.05.2024

 

Oumesh Verma son of Shri Achru Parshad Verma resident of H. NO. 1046/10, Vashisht Colony, Bye pass Road, Mohan Nagar, Kurukshera Mo:- 7404488881.

                                                                        …Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     Airtel Head Office, Registered Office Airtel Center Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram through its Managing Director.

2.     Airtel Office, Shop No. 14, Sector-13, Tehsil Thansar District Kurukshtetra through its Branch Manager.

3.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Telephone Exchange Sector 13, District Kurukshetra through its Telecom Manager.

…Opposite parties.

 

CORAM:    DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

NEELAM, MEMBER.

RAMESH KUMAR, MEMBER.

 

Present:   Shri Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for the OP No.1.

Shri Parveen Chopra, Advocate for the OPs No. 1 & 2.

OP No.3 ex parte.

 

Order:     

                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.             Briefly stated that, it is the case of the complainant that he is using AIRTEL Postpaid Connection Mobile No. 7068331331.   Recently, he had been facing some connectivity problem and therefore, he decided to go with OP No.3 i.e. BSNL company by procedure of port of mobile connection from one company t o another.  He applied to the BSNL for porting to the Airtel Connection and the same got port with BSNL Network. The complainant further averred that  on 01.08.2022, he found that no connection had be showing upon his SIM in his mobile and therefore, he approached the BSNL officials in the OP No. 3 office and stated about the said problem. The BSNL Authority appraised him that Bill of Rs.81/- is pending with the OPs No. 1 & 2 Company.  The complainant further averred that he paid the bill of Rs.81/- on the same day and waited for activation of such number.  The complainant requested several times through E-mail, Reminder, but it did not any fruitful result. At last on 22.08.2022, the complainant received a mail from the OPs company wherein stating that “We request you to kindly pay the vanity charges of Rs.1,00,000/- to proceed further. Wish you our best services.”  The company is illegally demanding of Rs.1,00,000/- as vanity charges as these are not outstanding towards complainant.  The company is making fool and is going the way of frugality activity.

3.             Shri Parveen Chopra, counsel of the OPs No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed their joint written statement.    In their written statement, it has been mentioned that the said mobile number in the business of IELTS consultancy and immigration services, and therefore, the complaint is not a consumer as defined in Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act,2019.  It is pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid mobile No. issued by Department of Telecommunication (DOT) pertains to Bharti Airtel Ltd.- Uttar Pradesh Circle.   

4.             The OP No.3 failed to appear before the Commission and proceeded ex parte vide order dated 29.11.2022.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents EX. C1 to Ex. C5 and closed the evidence on 29.05.2023 by suffering separate statement. Learned counsel for the OPs No. 1 & 2 tendered affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed the same on 6.10.2023 vide making separate statement.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Shri Shekhar Thakur, counsel of the complainant argued that complainant is using AIRTEL Postpaid Connection Mobile No. 7068331331.   Recently, he had been facing some connectivity problem and therefore, he decided to go with OP No.3 i.e. BSNL company by procedure of port of mobile connection from one company t o another.  Complainant Oumesh Verma applied to the BSNL for porting to the Airtel Connection and the same got port with BSNL Network. The counsel of the complainant further argued that on 01.08.2022, complainant found that no connection had been showing upon his SIM in his mobile and therefore, he approached the BSNL officials in the OP No. 3 office and stated about the said problem. The BSNL Authority appraised him that Bill of Rs.81/- is pending with the OPs No. 1 & 2 Company.  The counsel of the complainant further argued that he paid the bill of Rs.81/- on the same day and waited for activation of such number.  The complainant requested several times through E-mail, Reminder, but it did not any fruitful result. At last on 22.08.2022, the complainant received a mail from the OPs company wherein stating that “We request you to kindly pay the vanity charges of Rs.1,00,000/- to proceed further. Wish you our best services.”  He has further argued that Airtel Connection was not working well and hence, for some time, complainant used BSNL and paid the pending amount of Rs.81/- vide Ex. C-3. 

8.             Thereafter the complainant applied to the BSNL for porting his mobile number 7068331331 to Airtel for which Ops demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as vanity charges vide document Ex. C-5.  Shri Shekhar Thakur, counsel for the complainant has also argued that for porting a particular mobile number from BSNL to Airtel does not cost anything and OPs No. 1 & 2 are charging money as vanity charges unfairly. Op NO. 1 & 2 are s directed to waive off  the vanity charges accumulated. OPs No. 1 & 2 is directed to activate the number 7068331331 within one week from today.  The complaint is accepted with costs, which is assessed Rs.11,000/-.  Another Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental harassment, mental agony due to non-activation for mobile Sim No. 7068331331   which shall be paid by the OPs No. 1 & 2 within 45 days from today.  

9.             In default of compliance of this order, proceedings shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:20.05.2024

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)            

                                                                President,

                                                                DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

(Neelam)                (Ramesh Kumar)

Member                   Member

Urmil Rani

Stenographer