Bharathi Airtel limited V/S Dabhiram M.N. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/09/506

Dabhiram M.N. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharathi Airtel limited - Opp.Party(s)

09 Mar 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/506

Dabhiram M.N.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Bharathi Airtel limited						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.02.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 12th AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.506/2009 COMPLAINANTS 1. Abhiram M.N., No.136, 1 H Cross, Sharada colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Software Engineer (Wipro Technologies) 2. R. Anil Kumar, No.466, 1st Main, 3rd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate. 3. Badri Embar, #234, Varenayam, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konanakunte, Bangalore 560 062. System process Analyst and Control (IBM). 4. Balaji Deshpande, No.875, Saraswathi Nilaya, NGOs Colony, Kamalanagar, Bangalore 560 079. Remote System Admin (H.P. Systems Limited). 5. Chandrashekar Gowda, No.1276, 1st Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate. 6. Deepak D.C., No.894, 1st B Main, K.S.Town, Bangalore 560 060. Advocate. 7. D.Nagaraj, No.131, Krishnakrupa, 7th Main, 6th Cross, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Social Worker. 8. Gautham Nettar, No.B-5212, RMV Clusters, 2nd Phase Devinagar, Lottegollahalli, Bangalore, Advocate. 9. Guha G.V.K., #103, V2 Vasudha, 9th A Main, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Asst Manager IBM Daksh Pvt Ltd. 10. Madan Embar, No.234, Varenayam, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bangalore 560 062. Advocate. 11. N.Sridhar, Payonidhi Law Chambers, 2nd Main, Ghandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate. 12. Raghavendara, No.1150, 18th C Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate. 13. Rahuram D., No.131, Krishnakrupa, 7th Main, 6th Cross, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Senior Consultant (Honeywell) 14. Reshma C.R., No.234, Varenyan, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bangalore 560 062. Human Resource Manager. (Honeywell) 15. Shanthibhushan, No.583, Hombelaku, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 3rd Main, 2nd Block, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate. 16. Vinay S. Kumar, No.70/25, 80ft Circular Road, Koramangala, 4th Block, Bangalore 560 034. Manager Finance and Administration (Strategic Outsourcing Services) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Bharathi Airtel Limited, Regional Office, 55, Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 029. Telecom Service Provider. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each one of these complainants with damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under. 3. Complainants are from different avocation and professions like Lawyers, Software Engineers, and Executives etc. In order to promote their avocation and the business they availed the services of OP and took connection to their respective mobile phones as per the details noted in the para 5 of the complaint. But unfortunately the service of the OP is highly defective. From the month of August 2008 there was a low network coverage. Tower was not working properly. They were unable to send SMS and receive the SMS and also unable to contact their customers, friends, clients and relatives. Though they made several requests and demands to OP, to rectify the said mistake, but it went in futile. For no fault of there theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly they are advised to file this complaint. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP the complainant filed in the present form is not maintainable. The cause of action alleged has no basis it is vague. The allegations of loss of network and the tower problem are false. If there is some defect with regard to net work the proper remedy available to the customers is to approach the tribunal constituted under the Telephone Regulation Authority Act. The other allegations made by the complainants are vague. Some times the network problems arises at a particular place like in basements, lifts, upper floors, high-rise buildings, areas in which radio active moments are more or in any congested places it is but natural and usual. It is inevitable. Complainants are not specific where they use their cell phones. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is devoid of merit. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on. Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. It is the contention of the complainants that they availed the service of the OP. Of course OP has disputed this fact with respect to the complainant No.8 and 15. According to the complainants the services of the OP was defective since the month of August 2008 to January 2009. There was a low network coverage. Tower was not properly maintained hence they were unable to send the SMS or receive the SMS and also unable to contact their friends, customers, clients and relatives. According to the complainants they are engaged in a respectable avocation and the business, some of them are Engineers, Lawyers, Executives, because of the non availability of the network they suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Their repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the defect went in futile. 9. On the perusal of the documents produced by the complainant except the legal notice dated 11.09.2008 no other documents are produced. Whether the complainants kept in touch with OP right from August 2008 is not known. If really they were experiencing in the low network and non maintenance of the tower as alleged nothing prevented them to contact the OP immediately. But no such steps are taken. On the other hand OP has produced the extensive list with regard to call details of these complainants they speaks to the fact of extensive use and the utilization of their respective mobiles, during the alleged relevant period. Hence for this simple reason the allegations of the complainants appears to be false. 10. Though there are 16 complainants only complainant 15 has filed the affidavit evidence, none others have led their evidence. From which date these complainants availed the services of OP under what tariff, scheme is not known. When actually the cuase of action arose to which one of these complainants is not known. Who are all those clients, customers, friends and relatives to whom they are unable to contact is not known. There is no corroborative evidence lead the part of the complainants to substantiate their allegations. 11. In a cases of like nature the uncorroborated interested testimony of the complainant alone cannot be believed. All these 16 complainants does not belongs to a single company or a corporate office or hails from the same taternity. Some are legal practioners, Software Engineers and Executives etc. How they come in contact with each other and filed this common complaint is not known. The allegations made in the complaint are vague and bold. It is an omni bus statement. We find force in the defence of the OP that the complaint in the present form not maintainable. 12. OP has fairly contended that there is some possibility with regard to the network or signal problem. If it is proved then the remedy available to the customer is to approach the tribunal constituted under provisions of Telecom Rules Authority of India Act of 1992 but no such steps are taken. When complainants have not exhausted the said remedy available to them before the competent regulatory authority they cant allege the deficiency in service against the OP. 13. It is further contended that by the OP adequacy of network depends on many facts and circumstances. The network response may be low in certain areas like basements, lifts, upper places, high-rise buildings and places where radio active moments are found congested places. This possibility cannot be ruled out. It is a common experience. Where actually these complainants were using their cell phones is not made clear. If they are using cell phones in basement and other places referred to above naturally there may be some network problem which is inevitable. For that OP cannot to be blamed. The whole of the complainant appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainants are not entitled for a relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.

COMPLAINT FILED: 28.02.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 12th AUGUST 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.506/2009 COMPLAINANTS 1. Abhiram M.N., No.136, 1 H Cross, Sharada colony, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Software Engineer (Wipro Technologies) 2. R. Anil Kumar, No.466, 1st Main, 3rd Stage, 3rd Block, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate. 3. Badri Embar, #234, Varenayam, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konanakunte, Bangalore 560 062. System process Analyst and Control (IBM). 4. Balaji Deshpande, No.875, Saraswathi Nilaya, NGOs Colony, Kamalanagar, Bangalore 560 079. Remote System Admin (H.P. Systems Limited). 5. Chandrashekar Gowda, No.1276, 1st Stage, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore 560 079. Advocate. 6. Deepak D.C., No.894, 1st B Main, K.S.Town, Bangalore 560 060. Advocate. 7. D.Nagaraj, No.131, Krishnakrupa, 7th Main, 6th Cross, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Social Worker. 8. Gautham Nettar, No.B-5212, RMV Clusters, 2nd Phase Devinagar, Lottegollahalli, Bangalore, Advocate. 9. Guha G.V.K., #103, V2 Vasudha, 9th A Main, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Asst Manager IBM Daksh Pvt Ltd. 10. Madan Embar, No.234, Varenayam, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bangalore 560 062. Advocate. 11. N.Sridhar, Payonidhi Law Chambers, 2nd Main, Ghandhinagar, Bangalore 560 009. Advocate. 12. Raghavendara, No.1150, 18th C Main, 5th Block, Rajajinagar, Bangalore 560 010. Advocate. 13. Rahuram D., No.131, Krishnakrupa, 7th Main, 6th Cross, Srinivasanagar, Bangalore 560 050. Senior Consultant (Honeywell) 14. Reshma C.R., No.234, Varenyan, 3rd Cross, New Bank Colony, Konankunte, Bangalore 560 062. Human Resource Manager. (Honeywell) 15. Shanthibhushan, No.583, Hombelaku, 1st Floor, 1st Cross, 3rd Main, 2nd Block, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate. 16. Vinay S. Kumar, No.70/25, 80ft Circular Road, Koramangala, 4th Block, Bangalore 560 034. Manager Finance and Administration (Strategic Outsourcing Services) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Bharathi Airtel Limited, Regional Office, 55, Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560 029. Telecom Service Provider. O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each one of these complainants with damages on an allegations of deficiency in service. 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under. 3. Complainants are from different avocation and professions like Lawyers, Software Engineers, and Executives etc. In order to promote their avocation and the business they availed the services of OP and took connection to their respective mobile phones as per the details noted in the para 5 of the complaint. But unfortunately the service of the OP is highly defective. From the month of August 2008 there was a low network coverage. Tower was not working properly. They were unable to send SMS and receive the SMS and also unable to contact their customers, friends, clients and relatives. Though they made several requests and demands to OP, to rectify the said mistake, but it went in futile. For no fault of there theirs they were made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances they felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly they are advised to file this complaint. 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to the OP the complainant filed in the present form is not maintainable. The cause of action alleged has no basis it is vague. The allegations of loss of network and the tower problem are false. If there is some defect with regard to net work the proper remedy available to the customers is to approach the tribunal constituted under the Telephone Regulation Authority Act. The other allegations made by the complainants are vague. Some times the network problems arises at a particular place like in basements, lifts, upper floors, high-rise buildings, areas in which radio active moments are more or in any congested places it is but natural and usual. It is inevitable. Complainants are not specific where they use their cell phones. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is devoid of merit. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed their affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No.1 :- Whether the complainants have proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.2 :- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.3 :- To what Order? 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on. Point No.1:- Negative. Point No.2:- Negative. Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 8. It is the contention of the complainants that they availed the service of the OP. Of course OP has disputed this fact with respect to the complainant No.8 and 15. According to the complainants the services of the OP was defective since the month of August 2008 to January 2009. There was a low network coverage. Tower was not properly maintained hence they were unable to send the SMS or receive the SMS and also unable to contact their friends, customers, clients and relatives. According to the complainants they are engaged in a respectable avocation and the business, some of them are Engineers, Lawyers, Executives, because of the non availability of the network they suffered both mental agony and financial loss. Their repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the defect went in futile. 9. On the perusal of the documents produced by the complainant except the legal notice dated 11.09.2008 no other documents are produced. Whether the complainants kept in touch with OP right from August 2008 is not known. If really they were experiencing in the low network and non maintenance of the tower as alleged nothing prevented them to contact the OP immediately. But no such steps are taken. On the other hand OP has produced the extensive list with regard to call details of these complainants they speaks to the fact of extensive use and the utilization of their respective mobiles, during the alleged relevant period. Hence for this simple reason the allegations of the complainants appears to be false. 10. Though there are 16 complainants only complainant 15 has filed the affidavit evidence, none others have led their evidence. From which date these complainants availed the services of OP under what tariff, scheme is not known. When actually the cuase of action arose to which one of these complainants is not known. Who are all those clients, customers, friends and relatives to whom they are unable to contact is not known. There is no corroborative evidence lead the part of the complainants to substantiate their allegations. 11. In a cases of like nature the uncorroborated interested testimony of the complainant alone cannot be believed. All these 16 complainants does not belongs to a single company or a corporate office or hails from the same taternity. Some are legal practioners, Software Engineers and Executives etc. How they come in contact with each other and filed this common complaint is not known. The allegations made in the complaint are vague and bold. It is an omni bus statement. We find force in the defence of the OP that the complaint in the present form not maintainable. 12. OP has fairly contended that there is some possibility with regard to the network or signal problem. If it is proved then the remedy available to the customer is to approach the tribunal constituted under provisions of Telecom Rules Authority of India Act of 1992 but no such steps are taken. When complainants have not exhausted the said remedy available to them before the competent regulatory authority they cant allege the deficiency in service against the OP. 13. It is further contended that by the OP adequacy of network depends on many facts and circumstances. The network response may be low in certain areas like basements, lifts, upper places, high-rise buildings and places where radio active moments are found congested places. This possibility cannot be ruled out. It is a common experience. Where actually these complainants were using their cell phones is not made clear. If they are using cell phones in basement and other places referred to above naturally there may be some network problem which is inevitable. For that OP cannot to be blamed. The whole of the complainant appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainants are not entitled for a relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 12th day of August 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT s.n.m.