BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.342 of 2014

Date of Instt. 01.10.2014

Date of Decision :13.03.2015

Lt.Col.Nachhattar Singh Sandhu (Retd.) son of Uttam Singh Sandhu R/o 520 Mann Nagar, PO: Tower Town Colony, Jalandhar-14401.

..........Complainant

Versus

Airtel Jalandhar Office located in Main Market of Model Town, Jalandhar-144003.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite party on the averments that the complainant contacted Airtel, Jalandhar office for wifi connection during the last week of August 2014. Accordingly airtel representative came to his house on 2.9.2014 for demonstration. Demonstration was OK and he agreed to get the wifi connection. The representative asked him to pay Rs.2500/- for the router. He paid Rs.2500 to him. He explained him that his plan (post paid) would cost him Rs.999/- per month and airtel well provide him 4G, 10GB data (after 10GB, 100 percentage free). The connection was activated and services started on 3.9.2014 with airtel 4G LTE No.9915732238. Billing cycle was scheduled from 26th to 25th next month. On 10.9.2014 it stopped working with good speed. He visited airtel, Jalandhar office to know the reasons. They told him that 10GB data has been consumed that is the reason the wifi speed has been reduced. After 10.9.2014 he was totally disgusted and dissatisfied with the services of airtel for the following reasons:-

1. He has got two smart android mobiles phones. After 10.9.2014 no web page could be opened. Youtube stopped working. No video could be played.

2. He has got a laptop. Even on laptop youtube stopped working and no video could be played.

3. He has got a LED TV. That LED TV could not be connected either with laptop or mobile phones.

2. Since his billing cycle is from 26 to 25 of the next month, he visited airtel Jalandhar office on 22.9.2014 with the request to disconnect the connection but the representative on duty told him to come on 27.9.2014 so that disconnection could be done after payment of the bill. On 27.9.2014 he visited the airtel Jalandhar office to submit his application for disconnection but the representative told him that he has to wait for another two months and pay bills every month. At the time of release of connection no one told him that one can request for disconnection only after three months from the date of release of connection. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to disconnect his wifi connection forthwith and to refund of Rs.2500/- charged from him for router on returning the router to the opposite party as it will be useless to him. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the complainant had taken the connection under the plan as mentioned as per his free will and choice. Complainant knew the charges of the connection and allied equipment required for the connection. The connection was active but the complainant had used the data under the plan. The complainant was even sent SMS in this regard. The screen shot of the system showing the details of SMS sent is attached. Prior to the same the credit limit of the customer had to increase from Rs.5000 to Rs.5800/- due to his usage of the connection. The complainant when approached the mentioned office he was updated on the same and made aware that he had consumed his data and due to credit limit exposure the number was barred. On the request of the customer the credit limit was increased. The dates mentioned are wrong. The SMS as mentioned was sent on 15.9.2014. On the request of the customer the number stand disconnected and there is no cause of action in favour of the complainant. It denied other material averments of the complainant.

4. In support of her complaint, complainant has tendered affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the opposite party.

7. The complainant took wifi connection from the opposite party under Rs.999/- per month plan as mentioned in the complaint itself. The service started on 3.9.2014. The complainant contended that on 10.9.2014 it stop working with good speed and he visited airtel Jalandhar office to know the reasons and they told him that 10GB data has been consumed and that is reasons the wifi speed has been reduced. In the written reply, the opposite party has specifically pleaded that wifi connection of the complainant stand disconnected. In the complainant, complainant has himself admitted that on 10.9.2014 it stop working with good speed and he visited airtel Jalandhar office to know the reasons and they told him that 10GB data has been consumed and that is reasons the wifi speed has been reduced. Ex.OP/1 is leaflet regarding various plan including the plan of 10GB for rental of Rs.999/- per month obtained by the complainant. Below the table regarding rental and plan benefits, it is specifically mentioned that speed throttled at 128 kbps after the allocated data usage is exhausted. So after 10GB data has been consumed by the complainant, the speed was to be reduced as per plan and it is mentioned on leaflet Ex.OP/1. In the complaint, the complainant has also admitted that the opposite party has told him that 10GB data has been consumed and due to this reason wifi speed has been reduced. So complainant can not have any grievance on this score. The router taken by the complainant at the time of installation of wifi connection can not be directed to be received by the opposite party and to refund its price to the complainant. The opposite party can not be compelled to take back the old router from the complainant after his connection has been disconnected on his request and to refund its price to him. The complainant has not led any reliable evidence to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

8. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

13.03.2015 Member Member President