Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/515/2014

Sandeep Sharma s/o Sh.Sudesh Sharma, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Officer Sansar Communication - Opp.Party(s)

Anurag Sharma

06 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 515  of  2014

                                                                                         Date of institution: 10.12.2014.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 06.06.2016.

Sandeep Sharma aged about 33 years son of Sh. Sudesh Sharma, Magma Finance Corporation Ltd., SCO-60, 2^nd Floor, District Sub Centre, HUDA, at present residing at SCO-129, 1^st Floor above TATA Showroom, Sector-17, HUDA, Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Airtel Officer, Sansar Communication, Sub Centre HUDA, near Kanhiya Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. Bharti Airtel Limited Bharti Crescent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its Manager/Officer concerned.
3. Bharti Airtel Limited, Circle Office, 85, Durand Road, Ambala Cantt, Haryana 133001 through its Manager/Officer concerned.

                                                                                                                                                                           … Respondents.

 

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Anurag Sharma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Respondents already ex-parte.    

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to withdraw the excess amount from the telephone bill bearing No. 565030158 dated 21.09.2014 and further to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.   

2.                     Brief facts of the present compaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that  complainant is user of Airtel connection bearing No. 9896406662 from the last 15 years and from the last 2 years the complainant shifted his pre paid connection into postpaid. Since, the complainant is user of internet connection and as such their exist a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. The complainant had been regularly paying the bills up to month of August 2014 and the average monthly rent of the last one year was up to Rs. 250/- to 450/-. Thereafter, the bill bearing No. 565030158 dated 21.09.2014 for an amount of Rs. 5787/- extraordinary bill (Annexure C-9) was raised upon the complainant by the OPs. After receiving the bill, the complainant sent complaint through E-mail on dated 18.09.2014 and 19.09.2014 to correct his bill as per his uses but the OPs did not listen the genuine request of the complainant. However, complainant deposited monthly rent calling charges bill tax of the bills i.e. Rs. 620/- on 26.09.2014 whereas monthly rent calling charges with tax amounting to Rs. 607/-. As the Ops declined to correct the impugned bill and refused to withdraw the same which constitute deficiency in service. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs failed to appear despite service, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.02.2015.

4.                     In support of his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A and documents such as Photo copies of mobile bills as Annexure C-1 to C-9, Photo copy of E-mail Annexure C-10 and C-11, Photo copy of complaint Annexure C-12, Photo copy of application form for Migration from prepaid to postpaid as Annexure C-13 and closed his evidence.

5.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

6.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that complainant was using the telephone connection in question from the last so many years and from the last two (2) years the complainant shifted his prepaid connection into postpaid and since then complainant had been regularly paying the bills up to the month of August 2014. The average monthly rent of the last 1 year ranges between Rs. 250/- to 450/- and draw our attention towards the telephone bills Annexure C-1 to C-8. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the complaint made to the OPs through E-mails as well as written letter Annexure C-10 to C-12. From the perusal of telephone bills Annexure C-1 to C-8, it is evidently clear that the amount of bills raised by the OPs remains between 250 to 450 from the bill period from 20.12.2013 to 19.08.2014. However, from the perusal of impugned bill for the period from 20.08.2014 to 19.09.2014 (Annexure C-9), it is evident that an amount of Rs. 5787/- has been raised vide bill No. 565030158 dated 21.09.2014 (Annexure C-9) which prima facie seems illegal in view of the bill amounts relating to the period from January 2014 to August 2014 and in the absence of any cogent evidence and defence of the OPs, we are unable to hold that the impugned bill has been raised correctly by the OPs whereas version of the complainant is dully supported by his un-rebutted affidavit AnnexueCW1/A and further from the complaints made to the Ops through E-mail as well as written complaints Annexure C-10 to C-12, it is evident that complainant had tried to resolve his problem at his own level but when the OPs did not pay any heed then he was forced to file the present complaint to redress his grievances under the compelling circumstances.  

7.                     In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that as the OPs failed to appear and contest the complaint and further in the absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the OPs, we have no option except to partly allow the complaint of complainant.

 8.                    Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of complainant and quash the remaining amount except monthly rent plus call charges with tax of the impugned bill bearing No. 565030158 dated 21.09.2014. The complaint is decided accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 06.06.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER