Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/955/2019

Mr. Shiv Charanjit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/955/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/09/2019
Date of Decision	:	15/12/2021

 

 

Mr. Shiv Charanjit s/o Sh. Baldev Raj r/o #2012, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Airtel, SCO 185, Sector 37C, Chandigarh 160036 through its authorized signatory.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI RAJAN DEWAN	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OP

 

Per Rajan Dewan, President

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are, complainant had been using prepaid mobile No.95015-45403 of the OP since more than seven years. On 4.8.2019, the complainant lost his mobile phone having two sims, including the above, regarding which he lodged online DDR on 5.8.2019.  The complainant requested the OP for reissuance of the same number, but, the OP refused on the ground of mismatch of father’s name in its record and Aadhaar card.  Since the complainant was in dire need, Ms. Reena of the OP asked the complainant to change the number from prepaid to postpaid, buy monthly rental plan of ₹499/- and pay ₹250/- as activation charges. Left with no option, the complainant agreed to the same.  On 8.8.2019, the complainant sent email to CEO of the OP and requested for conversion of the number to prepaid and refund of the amount. On 10.8.2019, the OP advised the complainant to visit Airtel store to migrate to prepaid. Accordingly, the complainant visited the OP store, but, nothing was done. The complainant again sent email on 10.8.2019, but, OP replied that the migration can be done post completion of 30 days.  On 6.9.2019, OP raised bill of ₹909.86 and when the complainant resisted, OP vide email dated 7.9.2019 asked to pay ₹614.86 and further vide text message dated 14.9.2019 asked to pay ₹365/- which was duly paid. However, before conversion to prepaid, complainant was again asked to pay ₹236/-.  Thereafter, the number was ultimately changed to prepaid on 17.9.2019 and complainant was also forced to do recharge of ₹495/- for the same.  Alleged, due to acts of the OP, complainant had to pay ₹1,346/- and also suffered immense harassment.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint filed its written reply and admitted that the complainant lost his mobile alongwith the sim card.  Averred, OP acted as per guidelines of the TRAI and the connection was provided after verification as per the application/SEF form submitted by the complainant himself. Ultimately the number was migrated to prepaid w.e.f. 17.9.2019.  Admitted, the amount to the extent of ₹250/- was waived. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint. 
3.     Rejoinder was filed by the complainant and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record of the case.
6.     Per pleadings of the parties, facts with regard to loss of mobile with Airtel sim bearing No.95015-45403 are not in dispute before us at all. The case of the complainant is that instead of issuing the duplicate sim against the lost sim, he was unnecessarily harassed into procuring the same number through post paid and then apply for conversion of the same from post paid to pre paid in which process he had to unnecessarily incur ₹1,346/- besides mental and physical harassment.
7.     On the other hand, plea of the OP is that the complainant suppressed various facts and the new connection was provided as per application/SEF form submitted by the complainant himself.  However, the OPs have failed to elaborate as to what facts have been suppressed by the complainant.  OP is the custodian of record and if at all something had been suppressed by the complainant, it should have placed the same on record. If there was any difference in the father’s name of the complainant in the record of the OP, it should have produced some documentary evidence in support of the same to prove the discrepancy.  However, nothing of the sort has been brought on record by the OP.  The OP have also not denied that Ms. Reena was not employed with them at the relevant time. 
8.     The complainant fanatically wrote emails to the OP right from 8.8.2019 and narrated the entire sequence of events. If the OP had any aspersions, it could have also written to the complainant, but, it only explained the procedure for migration from post paid to prepaid.
9.     In today’s times when mobile no. is the primary source of communication between relatives/friends/colleagues and the same is also attached with so many services e.g. banks, Aadhaar, PayTM, WhatsApp etc. besides other Govt./private sector service providers where OTP is also received, one generally does not want to part with the number to avoid any inconvenience.  The complainant also did the same and rightly so.  However, the OP has not been able to convince us as to why the complainant could not be issued duplicate sim against the lost sim. Instead of that, the OP chose a novel method of asking the complainant to apply for same number through post paid and then apply for its migration to prepaid.  From the above explained facts and circumstances, we are of the view that, in the present case, the OP has exerted its dominant position to the detriment of the complainant and such like other consumers. Hence, the OP is proved to have indulged in deficiency in service and the present consumer complaint deserves to be allowed with suitable compensation.
10.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the amount of ₹1,346/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum w.e.f. 1.9.2019 till realization.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

11.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
12.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/12/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rajan Dewan]
hg	Member	Member	President