Haryana

Karnal

37/2012

Chhattar Singh S/o Banwari Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Chatter Singh

14 Oct 2014

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.37 of 2012

                                                               Date of instt.17.01.2012

                                                               Date of decision: 9.06.2015.

 

Chhattar Singh son of Sh.Banwari Lal resident of House No.213-L, Model Town, Karnal..

 

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                   Versus

 

Airtel India Pvt.Ltd.having its branch at Ambedkar Chowk, GT Road, Karnal through its Manager Shri Sumit/Authorized person.

                                                                         ………Opposite Party.

                   Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.                

 

 Present        Sh.Jeintenderveer Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

ORDER:                   

            

                     The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended upto date on the allegations that he was having one pre-paid mobile connection bearing No. 98960-98213 of the Opposite Party (Hereinafter referred as OP) and the same was used by himself.  On 3.9.2013  he made an application to the OP requesting to close all other special services  except telephone services. However, on 13.10.2011 at about 4.19PM he received  SMS     from  577770030  “Your Manasi services has renewed. You have been charged Rs.30/- for 30 days.”  Thereafter he again wrote an application dated 17.10.2011 to the OP providing him details of the deductions for the services provided on the said connection. He also made telephonic call to the OP on 14.10.2011 at  7.10PM seeking details of the deductions and in that response the OP sent SMS “ Thank you for contacting Airtel. Your request  reference is ROVAD51014412744”.  The OP again sent SMS on  16.10.2011 at 3.20PM  “Customer as per request in ROVAD  51014412744 has been deactivated on your mobile as per request.”  Again on 09.11.2011 at 12.06PM  he received SMS from  AH 55200 “Your Manasi services will be renewed in three days. Renewal charges Rs.30/- for thirty days. To stop the  services call 57777”.  Accordingly, he made telephonic call  on the  same day to stop the services and not to renew the same.  The OP again assured that services would not  be renewed and no amount would be deducted, but the OP did not any pay heed to his requests.  On 12.11.2011 at 12.10PM, he received SMS from 577770030 “ Your Manasi services has renewed. You have been charged Rs.30/- for thirty days.”  It has further been alleged that on 15.12.2011 at 5.06PM,  the OP deducted Rs.30/- from his account  for renewing Manasi services and sent SMS from 577770030 “Your Manasi services has been renewed and you have been charged Rs.30/- for thirty days.  In this regard he made telephonic call to the OP regarding renewal of the services and again he was assured that  no amount would be deducted  in future and the same would be refunded  to him.  Thereafter on 22.12.2011 at 5.18PM he received SMS  from 876 “thank you for contacting us regarding your airtel mobile. If you are satisfied with the instructions you had with Mr.Tejinder to reply to 876 (toll free) with yes or not”.  However, again on 11.1.2012 at 12.06PM, he received SMS from AH55200 “ Your Manasi services would be renewed for thirty days. Renewal charges Rs.30/- for thirty days. To stop services call 57777.  “  Then he made a call on the same day to  stop services and not to renew the same and assurance was given by the OP that services would not be renewed and the amount would  not be deducted and the same would be refunded to him.  In that regard he received  SMS on  14.1.2012 at  12.22PM  “ Thank you for  contacting us regarding your airtel mobile. If you are satisfied with the instructions  you had with Mr.Vinod  reply to 876 (Toll free) with yes or no “.  Thereafter ,on 14.1.2012 at  3.00PM OP  again deducted the amount from his account  illegally, though his name was in the list of DND “Do not disturb” since  8.9.2011.  It has also been alleged that the OP had harassed and humiliated the complainant knowingly and intentionally causing him mental pain and harassment and agony apart from financial loss. Thus, the OP is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in services AND Rs.5500/- as litigation  expenses.

2.                 Notice of the complaint was given to the OP.  However, none  put into appearance on behalf of the OP despite service and as such ex parte proceedings were initiated against the OP vide order dated 2.3.2012.

 

3.                 In the ex – parte evidence the complainant filed  his affidavit and produced documents.

4.                 We have heard the leaned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

5.                 The complainant has alleged that he had written letter to the OP on 3.9.2011 to close all other services except telephone services on his Mobile No. 98960-98213, but on 13.10.2011 he received message that amount of Rs.30/- was charged for renewal of Manasi services. He again wrote letter dated 17.10.2011 to the OP lodging protest and  asking details of the services and payment deducted from his account. It has further been alleged that he lodged protest to the OP on telephone on 14.10.2011, 9.11.2011, 15.12.2011 and 11.1.2012, but despite that the OP deducted Rs.30/- from his account every month  for renewal of Manasi services for the months of October, November and  December, 2011 and  January, 2012 and sent messages in that regard.  The allegations made in the complaint find support  from  the affidavit of the complainant and copies of the letters dated 3.9.2011 and 17.10.2011 served  by the complainant upon the OP. This evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted  and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.  Thus, it stands established that the OP had deducted the amount of Rs.30/- per month  for a period of four months i.e.  from October, 2011 to January, 2012 from the account of complainant for renewal of Manasi services despite sending request by him not to provide him other services except telephone services and he lodged protest also regarding such deductions.  Such act on the part of the OP certainly amounted to deficiency in services, which apart  from financial loss caused mental harassment to the complainant.        

 

6.                 As  a sequel to  the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.120/- to the complainant deducted from his account for providing Manasi services. The OP shall also make the payment of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him and towards litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The   parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:09.06.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

 

Present         Sh.Jeintenderveer Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 9.6.2015.

 

Announced
dated:26.5.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.

 

Present         Sh.Jeintenderveer Singh Advocate for the complainant.

                   OP ex parte.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:9.6.2015                                                                      

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                   (Smt.Shashi Sharma)

                             Member.