Order-7.

Date-20/10/2016.

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant’s case in short, is that, he was using a BSNL No.9432255550 for his mobile for past 10 years.  In the month of February he purchased an Android Phone of Samsung being Model No.Glaxy 56 with 4G connectivity from Samsung Store at South City Mall, Jadavpur.  At the time of purchase the sales person of that store proposed to the complainants to use a connection of Airtel 4G for that newly mobile.  The complainant ported the said BSNL Connection into the connection of Airtel with 4G network and Local/STD incoming and outgoing facility in the postpaid mode provide by Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. and the applicant paid bills on regular basis;.  In the month of October, the complainant went to Malaysia, Indonesia, Bally and he contacted the Customer Care for facilitating the roaming services in his existing number but after reaching at Malaysia when he tried to make calls with the members of his family, he was not able to contact with them for three days due to non-availability of roaming facility and he had to use local SIM at Malaysia, Indonesia and Thailand.  On his return from abroad he contacted the executive of Bharti Airtel and asked them to cancel the roaming registration and activity and roaming connection was disconnected thereafter.  In the month of November, when the complainant was planning for visiting Malaysia again, he requested to facilitate the ISD connection which was effected within few hours and was given to understand that ISD charges for one minute call to Malaysia would be 7 to 10 hours and the complainant asked the OPs for registration for roaming connection for the 2^nd time.  Surprisingly on his return from Malaysia on 4^th December, he got one sms of the bill Rs.35,000/- and odd. The complainant immediately contacted the executive of Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. as against the exorbitant bill amount under the garb of roaming charges when such roaming facility was not asked by the complainant.  The OP thereafter, sent sms and repeatedly called the complainant in his Airtel number and asked him to pay Rs.47,000/- without sending any details of the bills and thereafter, stopped the outgoing facility.  Ultimately, the controversy was settled at Rs.20,000/- at the request of the In-Charge of Recovery Cell of the OPs.  The complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- and the OPs acknowledged the receipt of payment on 18-03-2016.  The complainant also received a sms of settlement after encashing the cheque the OPs failed to revive the connection and his mobile connection was not reactivated.  It is alleged that the OP failed to restore the connection. After realizing the settled amount.  The complainant alleged complaint vide letter dated 21-12-2015 against the bill vide bill no.24022106 dated 21-12-2015.  He also reported the matter to the nearest Airtel Customer Care, Park Street, but to no good.  Hence, this case.

          The OPs have entered into appearance in this case but failed and neglected to file written version within the stipulated period.  The case, as such, has proceeded ex parte against the OPs.

Point for Decision

1. Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering the service to the complainant?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

We have perused the documents on record, viz., copy of the letter dated 30-12-2015 addressed to the OP by the complainant, Xerox copy of payment receipt dated 18-03-2016 amounting to Rs.20,000/- and other documents on record.  It appears that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards full and final satisfaction of the dues to the OPs and the OPs assured to revive the connection forthwith.  It is alleged by the complainant that In-Charge of Recovery Cell acknowledged the receipt of payment on 18-03-2016 and the applicant received a sms of settlement but after encashing the cheque the mobile connection of the complainant was not reactivated.  It is also alleged by the complainant that due to inadvertence the sms settlement was deleted and he requested the OP to send the sms once again for taking out a print out but the OPs avoided to provide sms.  It appears that the OPs did not restore the connection after realizing settlement amount and they have willfully and deliberately failed to revive the connection of the mobile no.9432255550.

          None came from the side of the OPs to contradict or controvert the version of the complainant as stated in the petition of the complaint and as adduced in the evidence by the complainant.  The evidence of the complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted.  No bill regarding roaming charges is forthcoming from the OP as such.  In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and having regard to the documents on record and the evidences thereon we think that the OPs have been deficient in rendering services to the complainant.  We think that complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

In result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the instant complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.

          OPs are jointly and severally directed to restore the connection of the mobile number of the complainant being no.9432255550 within 15 days from the date of this order.

          OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant within the said stipulated period.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the order into execution u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act and in that case OP shall be liable to pay penal damage  at the rate ofRs.5,000/- to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.

Order-8.

Date-08/06/2017.

On receipt of the copy of the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB in First Appeal No.A/1101/2016, the record is put to-day. Both the parties are present. A petition is filed by the O.P. stating therein that the matter in dispute between the parties has been settled amicably out of the Court, with the prayer for disposal of the case. A petition is filed for the Complainant stating that the Complainant does not want to file any evidence on affidavit in this case and the matter has been settled out of the Court, with the prayer for withdrawal of the case.

                            Seen the copy of the order dated 16.05.2017 passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB aforesaid, perused the petitions filed by the parties to-day. Heard both the sides. As the matter has been settled amicably and the Complainant prays for withdrawal of the complaint, the present consumer complaint bearing no.CC/382/2016 is disposed of for non prosecution.