BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

                                                                    Complaint  No.81 of 2018

                                                                   Date of Instt. 27.02.2018

                                                                   Date of Decision: 03.07.2019

Raman Gulati S/o Sh. B. L. Gulati r/o 2528/9 Katra Dulo Gali Sewa Sayal, Near Hindu College Amritsar presently residing at NB 266 Lakshmi Pura, Jalandhar age 35 years.

                                                                             ..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Airtel Store Opposite NRI Sabha Near Tehsil Complex Jalandhar through its Manager/Prop/Partner/Authorized Representative Jalandhar Punjab.

2.       Bharti Airtel Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-2, New Delhi 110070, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Representative.

                                                                       ….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh              (President)

                              Smt. Jyotsna                      (Member)

 Present:        Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                              OP No.1 exparte.

 Sh. M. S. Sachdev, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

                             Karnail Singh (President)

1.                This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a customer/consumer and using the network of the Airtel for the so many years and the OP is providing the network services to the complainant on the mobile number 98155-11688. The complainant is facing network problem on his mobile number as mentioned above and asked the Customer Care many times to rectify the defect, but the service centre always gave a similar reply that they were sorry for the inconvenience as due to the network, up-gradation our customers are facing problem. Then complaint visited the office of the Airtel in the Jalandhar and lodged a complaint bearing number SR 83152495 dated 01.02.2018 and the complaint is with regard to network. It is worthwhile to mention here in that complaint gave many request for same issue to the customer care prior going to the Airtel Office at Jalandhar. It is the duty of the OP to provide the appropriate resolution to the complainant on time being one of the reputed network company, but the OP is not taking the complaints on serious note. The complainant is facing harassment due to the conduct of the OP and not able to use the network of the Airtel properly as this is the habit of the OP not to provide quality services to the customers. There is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  resolve the network problem in the interest of justice and  be also directed to provide excellent level of services to the complainant in the interest of justice and further OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

2.                     Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 did not come present and ultimately, OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.2 appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has attempted to misguide and mislead the Forum. In fact, the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the mobile connection No.98155-11688 is running in the name of Sh. Raman Gulati S/o Sh. B. L. Gulati, who is resident of 2228/89, Katra Dulo, Gali Sewa Sayal, Near Hindu College, Amritsar and is using this number for the last many years to his entire satisfaction. As such, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. It is further alleged that the complainant has not placed on record any receipt of OP against the payment made by the complainant for getting services from the OP No.2. The complainant has failed to mention the Plan, Data and Validity of the package against which the complainant is entitled to get services. The complainant has also failed to mention the exact date, time, place of network problem and unused balance data at the time of complaint, to this credit. The preliminary objections raised herein in regard to maintainability of the complaint needs to be considered at the outset and answering OP most humbly prayed that this Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint summarily without going into the merits thereof. On merits, the factum in regard to providing services of network is admitted and further submitted that the network problem faced by the complainant can be due to many reasons that do not pertain to the answering party. It can be due to the handset of the complainant. Older phones are incompatible to the latest technologies and the signal strength also depends on a number of factors like the area needs to have 3G towers, if the customer has used the data allocated and after the allocated data expires, the speed reduced to 2G speed, the population in the area etc. are amongst other factors that are responsible for low/slow speed of internet data. Without adequate proof and vague statements, the complainant has filed the present case without describing the issue he is facing. Additionally, it is not necessary that the network issue that is faced by the complainant is due to the network or services of the answering OP, there can be many other causes due to any network related issue that the complainant seems to be facing. The other averments as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and some documents Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2 and closed the evidence.

4.                Similarly, counsel for the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.2 and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.              The counsel for the complainant put a case very graceful manner and tried to prove that there is some network problem to the complainant, which is only for the reason that a poor services is being provided by the OPs to the complainant. We have gone through the entire complaint and find that the complainant has made vague and evasive allegations against the OPs. There are no specific allegation, on which date the complainant was facing network problem, it is not acceptable that the complainant is facing network problem regularly and moreover, it is not explained by the complainant whether he was having internet data and which plan has been chsosen by the complainant whether he has got internet data of 3G, 4G or 2G. According to Data, the services are provided by the OP, but when the complainant himself is not assured in regard to problem faced by him, then how we can accept the version of the complainant as it is without supporting any documentary or other proofs and as such, we came to conclusion that the complainant himself not able to establish on the file that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

7.                Further, we have considered the legal aspect raised by the OP that the instant complaint is not maintainable because the mobile connection in question stands in the name of Raman Gulati, who is the resident of Amritsar and he is using the said mobile connection for the last so many years at Amritsar. In response to this query of the OP, we like to refer a document Ex.C-2 i.e. Rent Agreement produced by the complainant on the file, which was executed between the complainant and one Pawan Kumar, wherein the complainant Raman Gulati is lessee and Pawan Kumar is lesser. So, it means the complainant has got a house at Jalandhar and using the said mobile connection at Jalandhar, if so, then the cause of action accrued at Jalandhar, therefore, the plea raised by the OPs is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

8.                In the light of above detailed discussion, we do not find any solid substances in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant, therefore the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.  

9.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jyotsna                                Karnail Singh

03.07.2019                          Member                              President