DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/16/46 of 4.2.2016

                                      Decided on:        30.6.2016

Naresh Kumar son of Sh.Om Parkash resident of Motia Bazar, Mandir Road, Samana Tehsil and District Patiala.  

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Branch Manager of Airtel Store, Partap Telecom, near GSK Nabha Road, Patiala Punjab.

2.      Nodal Officer of Airtel Company, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Phase-II, Manimajra, Chandigarh- 160026.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                                     

Present:

For the complainant:      In person.

For Op No1:                    Ex-parte.         

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant is a consumer of Airtel company having mobile No.93175-61041. It is averred by the complainant that the Airtel company was giving facilities of  concession like Rs.500/- for Rs.500/- and other messages free by depositing Rs.46/-. The company also gave one month free call facility. Accordingly , the complainant deposited Rs.46/- on 4.8.2015 for local I.P. per second for 56 days vide Trans ID No.1745622919. It is further averred that the complainant did not avail any facility from the OP on the said deposit of the amount of Rs.46/- till the filing of this complaint. The complainant approached OP time and again but to no use. It is alleged that this act of the Ops amounted to unfair trade practice. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
2. Cognizance of the complaint was taken against OP no.1 only.  Notice sent to OP no.1 was received back with the report ‘Address incomplete’. Again the notice was sent on the correct address given by the complainant but the  notice was received back with the report ‘refusal’. As such Op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence.
4. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the document which shows successful recharge of Rs.46/- vide  Trans ID 1745622919. This document does not show that this amount was paid by the complainant towards availing the facility of local I.P. per second for 56 days. The complainant has failed to prove that he paid Rs.46/- towards availing any call concession/facility from the Op. Also he has not produced any document relating to any scheme floated by the OP for availing call concession/facility by paying Rs.46/-. As such no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the Ops.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 30.6.2016

                                       Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                                 Member                                 President