Date of Filing:29/11/2021 Date of Order:05/04/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:05th DAY OF APRIL 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.459/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | MR A.M HUSSAIN SHAREEF No.003 Sai Balaji Elite Behind Janatha Layout Near Carmelram Gate Doddakanalli, Bangalore 560 035 Mob: 9611461279 (Complainant-In person) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY: | | BHARATI AIRTEL LIMITED Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurugram Gurgaon HR-122015. Represented by Authorized Signatory. (OP- Exparte) | |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not refunding the amount of Rs.20/- paid towards for recharge and for refund of the same along with damages of Rs.2,000/- for causing him mental harassment and hardship and litigations expenses and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is a customer of OP having obtained mobile connection on prepaid basis to his mobile No.9243870747, he used to recharge the mobile by paying Rs.49/-. The same expired on 04.08.2021. On 07.08.2021 at 6.30 am through online he wanted to recharge his mobile by paying Rs.20/-. The transaction ID was generated with ID No.1812080980 and message was sent to him. The talk time was Rs.14.95 and the balance was also showing the same thing , but the incoming and outgoing calls were barred by OP from 07.08.2021 itself. He got a message from OP regarding recharge against to the said mobile as the previous recharge of Rs.20/- was invalid. Inspite of taking the issue with OP, the same was not settled. He had to face lot of inconvenience and difficulty in not getting the phone calls and not able to make calls during the month of August due to OP’s mala fide act and he has to loose his hard earned money and also to face tremendous mental agony and inspite of the lapse of time, the same was not set right. The said fact of not activating his mobile inspite of receiving Rs.20/- amounts to deficiency in service, and unfair trade and hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint.
3. Upon the service of notice, Op remained absent and placed exparte.
4. In order to prove the case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
5. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 : IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT NO.2 : PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
6. On perusing the complaint, documents, evidence filed by the complainant, it becomes clear that, it is not in dispute that the complainant is a customer of OP having his mobile No.9243870747 which has a connection with OP. The correspondences and the reply received by OP reveals that the plan Rs.49/- was withdrawn. It was informed to the complainant by OP that “Further we would like to inform you that Rs.20/- recharge is not a valid recharge and hence we request you to make a validity recharges of Rs.79/- to use the service, to which communication the complainant has replied seeking refund of Rs.20/- and also raising the question as to how the system can receive Rs.20/- when there is no such plan and when the same cannot be recharged for the said amount.
7. Though the complainant has corresponded with OP and issued a legal notice, OP has remained adamant and silent in replying the same and also complying the demand of the complainant. The acceptance of Rs.20/- has been admitted by OP whereas it is a specific contention in the email correspondences that there is no validity for value of Rs.20/-, for which OP has to pay further Rs.79/-. When this is taken into consideration, it is the bounden duty of OP to refund Rs.20/- to the complainant which the same has not been done. Hence there is deficiency in service to that extent and also unfair trade practice in retaining the said amount with it. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and OP is directed to refund Rs.20/- along with Rs.500/- towards cost of litigation and Rs.500/- towards damages to the complainant by answering POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
- Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- OP i.e. Bharati Airtel Limited represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay Rs.20/- to the complainant.
- OP is further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards damages and Rs.500/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
- OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 05th day of APRIL 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | MR A.M HUSSAIN SHAREEF – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the Aadhar card and Pan card.
Ex P2: Copy of the Email conversations.
Ex. P3: Copy of the Legal notice.
Ex P4: Postal track record.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: - Nil-
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
- Nil-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
