Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/613

DEEPAK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIRTEL - Opp.Party(s)

24 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III (WEST)

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058

CASE NO. 613-2016

IN THE MATTER OF:-

 

 DEEPAK KUMAR                                                                                              ……COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

Head Office (Airtel)                                                                                                         ……OPPOSITE PARTY No.1

6^th Floor, Udyog Vihar,

Gurgaon, Haryana-122016

Landmark: Near Tower A, Plot No.16, Phase 4

 

Airtel Store (Janakpuri)

Shop No.24-25, West End Mall,

Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058                                                                                      …….OPPOSITE PARTY No.2

 

 

Airtel Store (Uttam Nagar)

WZ-247/3B, Plot 21, Main Najafgarh Road,

Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059.                                                                              …….OPPOSITE PARTY NO.3

 

 

 

PRESENT: NONE

 

Order by: Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal (Member)                                                                   Dated: 24-12-2021

 

ORDER

By  this complaint,  the complainant  Deepak Kumar seeks from OPs, firstly immediate option to port out mobile numbers  and secondly grant of compensation of Rs. 70,000/- towards harassment meted out to him in connection with visiting the office of Airtel (OPs) for resolution of the dispute relating to opting for “my plan family-799” in which he had sought to club all the four mobile numbers (9911343123, 8826941104, 9958652566,9650603547) of his family members and issue of one single bill. As per the complainant, despite opting for the said Plan and accordingly issue of consolidated bill by the OPs, which was duly paid, still separate bills were also raised for all the four mobile numbers by the OPs. Due to raising of separate bills for all the four mobile numbers and non-reflection of payments thereof in the records of OPs, the mobile services were deactivated and the same were  reinstated when the OPs were able to locate the amount already  paid in their account towards said mobile numbers.

                Along with the complaint, the complainant has filed certain e-mails to buttress his case that he followed  up the matter with the OPs for several months but we observe that in the complaint itself there is no mention as to when the issue arose and when it was resolved  and only a vague  statement has been made that he had distressing experience with Airtel  for the last 2-3 months. Even in  the e-mails filed by the complainant, complete details of the deliberations held between the parties as also the time taken, are  not forthcoming. Further certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act  to authenticate the claims made in the e-mails, has also not been filed by the complainant. Even in the affidavit filed by way of evidence, instead of proving the documents  filed in the case  on merits, the complainant has simply stressed on the point that the OPs had missed many hearings before the Commission and also not complied with the order whereby costs of Rs.5,000/- were imposed on them for procrastinating the proceedings.

On 23.11.2016, for non appearance of OPs 2 and 3, despite service,  they were proceeded ex parte.  On 12.1.2017, OP1 sought time to file reply but  did not  comply with the same. On 23.3.2017, again subject to payment of  costs of Rs.500/-, more time was granted for filing reply.  On 19.5.2017, costs of Rs.500/- were paid  but OP 1 sought further tine to file reply which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-On 28.8.2017, it was recorded by the Court that the  costs were paid but the reply was still not filed.  However, the OP1 was allowed further time to file reply subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/-. On 13.11.2017, since the OP1 neither filed reply nor paid the costs, it was proceeded ex parte and the complainant was allowed to file ex parte evidence, which was later on filed.

                On 14.11.2018, the complainant, on a query being raised by this Commission, clarified that  he was seeking relief regarding  compensation  for harassment and litigation expenses, which implies that the dispute  about portability of  mobile numbers, raised by him with the OPs, had   already  been resolved.

On 06.3.2019, the complainant did not appear. However,  OPs counsel appeared before the Court and sought time to  advance arguments, which was permitted despite there being earlier orders of ex parte against them.

On 02.09.2019, initially  the complainant did not appear. On a request being made by counsel for the OPs, in the interests of justice, their written arguments were allowed to be taken on record.  As per the OPs, the grievances of the complainant had since been  resolved and nothing survived in the complaint and sought dismissal of the same.  Later on, the complainant appeared and filed an application on record showing his inability to argue the matter in person because of his job outside Delhi and stressed the fact that the OPs had not paid the costs of Rs.5,000/- imposed on them. He also stated that the written arguments filed by him may be read as final arguments on  his behalf.

Again on 17.01.2020 complainant filed another application wherein also he showed his inability to argue the case and requested the court to decide the case on the basis of the evidence and e-mails filed by him and in the alternative, requested to allow him to withdraw the case because he is not based in Delhi and it is difficult for him to appear before the court and he does not expect OPs to pay the fines imposed by the Court. In the said letter, stress was again laid on the non-payment of costs imposed on the Ops by the Court for delaying the case by not appearing.

                Today when the matter was taken  up for  hearing, the complainant chose not to appear apparently for the reasons stated in his application dated 17.1.2020. He  has also not filed his written arguments as also the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act to authenticate  the emails filed on record before us. There is also no appearance on behalf of the OPs. We are therefore, left with no option but to decipher  from the  pleadings filed before us that the dispute of the complainant  qua the OPs has since been resolved. As regards the  compensation sought by the complainant, we may note that  by way of this complainant, the  main aim of the complainant is to extract money from the OPs  for the harassment faced by him while getting his case resolved and nothing else.

Since, we are not able to get any assistance from the complainant because of his non-appearance, non-filing of the written arguments as also certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act as also the fact that the  grievance of the complainant qua the OPs  has since been redressed, we do not consider it to be a fit case to grant any compensation.  The complaint is accordingly dismissed admittedly  for non-prosecution and  even otherwise on merits.  File be consigned to record room.

 

(Ms. Richa Jindal)                                             (Anil Kumar Koushal)                      (Ms. Sonica Mehrotra)

     (Member)                                                             (Member)                                         (President)