DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Mohinder Sigh, #3369, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh 160036.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 Airtel Relationship Centre, SCO 106, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh

2.                 Airtel, Shop No.251, Sector 37C & D, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  None for the complainant

                        OPs exparte

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Mohinder Singh has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only).

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is subscriber to mobile No.9915503369 of the opposite parties.  According to the complainant, he was to proceed to the USA.  So, he requested the opposite parties for the facility of using his phone from abroad (I.R. Activation).  He deposited Rs.5,000/- for the same on 23.6.2012 and he was assured that the facility would be activated within two days.

                   According to the complainant, he proceeded to America on 26.6.2012. However, when he reached there, and tried to contact his son in India, he did not get any signal.  It has been averred that he had to use the landline service and thereby incur extra expenditure during his stay in USA. 

                   According to the complainant, he returned to India on 26.9.2012 and contacted the opposite parties on 9.10.2012.  The complainant was assured that he would get refund of Rs.5,000/- (and his complaint was registered vide No.46368857 dated 9.10.2012).  But till today the said amount has not been refunded. 

                   It has been averred that the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service.

3.                           Notices sent for the service of the opposite parties were received back with the report of refusal.  Since refusal is good service and none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. 

4.                           On 16.1.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared for the complainant.  Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the complainant. 

5.                           We have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           Alongwith the complaint the complainant has annexed a copy of the provisional receipt which shows that the opposite parties received a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards “I.R. Activation” on mobile No.9915503369 of the complainant.  According to the complainant, in spite of taking the amount of Rs.5,000/- from him, the opposite parties did not activate the desired facility.  According to the complainant, due to the lapse on the part of the opposite parties, he was deprived of the usage of the facility for which he had paid the amount, in advance, and also had to face a lot of inconvenience in a foreign land (USA) as he had to use the landline service and thereby incur extra expenditure.  The complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit in support of his averments. It has also been stated in the affidavit that even the security amount has not been refunded to him till date.

7.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Hence the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted.

8.                           After going through the record of the case, we are of the opinion that failure on the part of the opposite parties to provide the ‘I.R. Activation’ on the mobile of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the present complaint needs to be allowed.

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- charged towards “I.R. Activation” to the complainant.

(ii)             to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant

(iii)           to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17.1.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER