2. None appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service of notices. Thus both the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.02.2016 and 05.05.2016 respectively.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-4 and CD Ex.C-5.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the pleadings and evidence.
5. The internet connection with credit limit of Rs.1,000/- per month by the OP in favour of the complainant is not disputed. There is no dispute of billing and usage of internet facility upto 21.11.2015. On 26.11.2015 the complainant got a package of Rs.99/- for 2 G unlimited mobile data and the complainant was issued bill of Rs.810/- on 21.11.2015 and against that an amount of Rs.750/- has been paid by him on 26.11.2015. Again the complainant received a message that his unbilled amount is Rs.865/- which is near to his credit limit. The complainant enquired about the said unbilled amount from the customer care and did not pay the said unbilled amount as he has already paid Rs.750/- on 26.11.2015. However, two days thereafter the outgoing facility was blocked as his unbilled amount has exceeded the credit limit. The complainant approached various authorities including Airtel store of OP No.2 in Phase 3B2, Mohali and the Manager of the store did not provide him any information whether some unidentified employee of bill connection section of the OPs visited the house of the complainant on 11.12.2015 for collection of unbilled amount of Rs.865/-. The complainant objected to the recovery of said amount and approached the office of the OPs at IT Park, Sector 26, Chandigarh and thereafter with the intervention of IT Park office, the issue has been sorted out as the OPs have admitted their folly of communication gap between the customer care and the billing section. The issue has been sorted and now the complainant has been charged for the internet usage and his blocked service has been restored. The main grievance in the complaint is that from 21.11.2015 to 21.12.2015 he has been put to unnecessary harassment, inconvenience and mental agony due to the acts of omission and commission of the OPs. The complainant is not a defaulter in any manner about the usage and payment of internet facility availed by him from the OPs.
6. In order to prove his complaint, the complainant has relied upon the e-mail dated 01.12.2015 Ex.C-3 and the same having been duly replied vide e-mail. Perusal of Ex.C-3 shows that the complainant has admitted having availed the services of the OPs with a credit limit of Rs.1,000/- and further plan of Rs.99/- for unlimited 2G data and has further admitted that the Plan–C chargeable has exceeded the credit limit and outgoing is now blocked. As per the complainant he has been mislead by the customer care official to believe that even if the complainant do not pay beyond the exceeded limit, his outgoing calls will continue. Therefore, he has not paid the exceeded amount and the OPs have blocked the outgoing facility. The clarification rendered by the OPs, as perused from Ex.C-3 clearly shows that the OPs have issued the bill for unbilled amount of Rs.1027/- which has exceeded the credit limit and, therefore, the number has been temporarily barred w.e.f. 01.12.2015. The complainant has admitted having paid all the outstanding amounts and, therefore, there is now uninterrupted availability of internet services to his mobile connection. The complainant has been mislead to believe the information of the customer care employee and he has recorded the conversation to this effect and supplied the same to the OPs as is evident from the e-mail dated 01.12.2015 and further the complainant has asked for certain information from the OPs vide his handwritten letter Ex.C-4 duly acknowledged by the OPs and the information sought is not supplied by the OPs till date. Further the OPs have not taken any steps to enquire into the conduct of the customer care employees who have misguided and mislead the complainant.
7. As per object and statement of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer has six rights and right to know is one of the basic right available to a consumer under the Act. The OPs have failed to protect the right of the complainant as they have not provided him the desired information sought by the complainant vide Ex.C-4 and further no information has been provided to him regarding the in house enquiry, if any, conducted by them about the misleading and misguiding conduct of the customer care employees as recorded by the complainant and recording having been provided to the OPs. There is not even a word of apology has come forward from the OPs in their e-mail dated 01.12.2015 Ex.C-3. Thus, the acts of the OPs can safely be termed as deficiency in service which has been squarely proved by the complainant. Thus, due to the acts of omission and commission of the OPs the complainant has been put to inconvenience, hardships and mental agony. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
8. In view of above discussions, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of the above directions be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
June 29, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
