Delhi

StateCommission

A/684/2017

C.K. DATTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIRTEL MOBILE SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :18.01.2018

Date of Decision :22.01.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.684/2017

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

Shri C.K. Dutta,

A-10/12 Sector-18, Rohini,

Delhi-110085.                                                                                              ……Complainant

                                                                        Versus

 

M/s. Airtel Mobile Services,

G-57, Aggarwal Centre Plaza,

DC Chowk, Sector-9,

Rohini,Delhi-110085.                                                                                 …..Respondent

 

HON’BLE SH. O.P.GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

HON’BLE SH. ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                     Yes/No

 

Present:           Appellant in person.

                       

 PER  : SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

          Mr. C.K. Datta, resident of Delhi, has preferred an appeal in this Commission, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for short complainant, against M/s. Airtel, hereinafter referred to as respondent, assailing the orders pronounced by the Distt. Consuemr Disputes Redressal Forum, North West, Delhi on 16.10.2017 and dispatched to the appellant on 28.10.2017, dismissing the complaint on merit and praying for allowing allowing the complaint as also the litigation cost. The said appeal has been filed in this Commission on 22.12.2017.

          Facts of the case are these.

          The appellant/ complainant while proceeding to Hong Kong on 26.01.2016 had approached the respondents/ OPs for the activation of international roaming for the purpose of SMS for which an amount of Rs.149/- was to be paid to the service provider. However, on arrival at Hong Kong the complainant  was asked to pay a sum of Rs.4,500/- on account of he, having alleged to have used the data of the respondent/ OPs. The complainant alleges that he never used the data of the respondents and that being the position he is under no obligation to pay. Besides according to the complainant he never made a request for such a data. His request was confined to the activation of SMS service for which he has no objection to pay the necessary agreed amount. Once no request has been made for the data, he cannot be subjected to make the payment. Besides the complainant/ appellant never used the data stated to have been activated by the OPs.

          The Distt. Fora dismissed the complaint on the ground that no cogent a tangible evidence was tendered by the complainant in this behalf to rebut the contention of the respondent.

          The order so passed has been impugned in this appeal. The appeal came up before us for admission hearing on 18.01.2018 when the complainant was present in person. We have perused the records of the case.

          We note that no evidence has been filed even before this Commission and in the absence of any material evidence being furnished, we find no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the Distt. Fora.

          There is one more factor to be taken note of. Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 posits that any person aggrieved by an order made by the Distt. Fora may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the  date of the order, in such form ad manner as may be prescribed.

          The impugned order was pronounced on 16.12.2017. Certified copy of the order was issued  on 28.10.2017 but appeal has been filed on 22.12.2017. Certainly the appeal has not been filed within the time prescribed under the provisions of Section 15 of the Act.

          Proviso to Section 15 of the Act posits that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days  if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period. No application for condonation of delay has been filed.   This is yet another ground we feel that the appeal is not entertainable.

          We order accordingly.

Copy of this order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. A copy of this order may be forwarded to the Distt. Fora also.

          File be consigned to records.

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                            (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                     MEMBER (JUDICIAL)