PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                               CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.38/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Pabitra Kumar Tripathy, Aged about 73 years,

S/O-Late Ashutosh Tripathy

R/o- Govindtola, PO/S-Dhanupali. Dist-Sambalpur-768005

Adhaar No.926121688845

Mobile No. 9438650447                                                .……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

Airtel Mobile Office

At-Nayapali,

Bhubaneswar-751012                                                                                      ...……….Opp. Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Self
2. For the O.P.s                                 :-         Ex-parte

Date of Filing:20.03.2023,Date of Hearing :29.05.2023, Date of Judgement : 03.07.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complaint is that the Complainant is a senior citizen having there mobiles numbers of JIO, Airtel and BSNL. The Complainant is dissatisfied with harsh words use by the O.P. time and time again and audacity behaviour. The words “recharge” are repeatedly used by the O.P. again and again when 28^th day is going to complete. The attitude of the O.P. company is not only unpleasant but also show behaviour as if the customers are subordinate to them. The customer is at liberty to talk for total amount deposited and assigned for sweet will. The customer may spend the amount in 15 days and in case of non-use it is not extended beyond the validity period. This attitude is monopolistic and arbitrary.

                    Subsequently the Complaint further alleged that the O.P. blocked his number and for which a notice was given and a copy                was filed before this Commission.

2. The Complainant on 16.05.2023 charged Rs. 239/- but on 23.05.2023, when call was made on the same day reply was coming “you have no sufficient balance. First recharge the mobile.” These are the allegations of the Complainant.
3. The O.P. after receipt of notice also not turned up, accordingly set ex-parte.
4. From the Complaint it reveals that the Complainant is dis-satisfied with the repeated alarming messages “recharge”. Of the O.P. It is an advertising policy of the O.P. to sale their product. It violates the services and Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulation, 2016. The Telecommunication (Broadcasting & Cable) services standard of Quality of services. The sale procedures should not be annoying to any customer.
5. Secondly, the Complainant and O.P. are entering into a contract and the O.P. is agreed to give service within the validity period. As per plan incoming facility should be provided by the O.P. for 28 day if it is a plan for 28 days and outgoing facilities depend on the user. It is not the monopoly of the Company, rather the O.P. works as per the terms and conditions of the plan. Once the plan amount paid, the customer enters into a contract and bind himself as per the plan. The contention of the Complainant is not acceptable in this respect.

                   Analysing the circumstances of the complaint, the following order is passed:

                                                                          ORDER

                 The complaint is partly allowed. The O.P. is directed to follow the Telecommunication (Broadcasting & cable) services and             Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulation, 2016 and not to annoy any Customer in future in the name of the                        facilitation of a plan before it expires. Further following TRAI Regulation, 2017 in true letter and spirit the O.P. is to see the customer          satisfaction.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 3^rd day of July, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.