<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2815/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Dr.Pattan Shamshu,#3A, New No.6, Reading Room Street,J.C Nagar (Muni Reddy Palya)Bangalore – 560 006.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Bharti Airtel Limited,No.55, Divyasree Towers,Bannerghatta Road,Bangalore – 560 029.2. Airtel,#56/4, Sharada Tower,Nandidurga Road,Benson Town,Bangalore – 560 046.Advocate – Sri.B.J.Mahesh<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 refund the amount of Rs.700/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being the Medical Practitioner thought of availing the OP connection to use Internet and GPRS facility. In that regard he got disconnected the BSNL Broadband on 12.12.2008. He took Airtel sim on 11.12.2008 but thereafter OP failed to activate the Internet and GPRS service in spite of his repeated requests and demands. OP collected the necessary charges and promised to activate within 24 hours but failed to do so. As per the demand made by the OP, complainant sent SMS “PLIVE ACTV” to 222. Thereafter also there was no response. Then he was directed to send SMS “MO” to 121 for GPRS daypack by paying necessary charges. Complainant did the same. Again there was no response and no activation. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant is unable to update his studies. OP took its own sweet time in activating and started transferring the headache from one branch to another. Complainant is made to move from pillar to post right up to 18.12.2008. Again there was no response. Complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has collected the necessary charges as contemplated to provide the service. Complainant failed to comply the directions issued by the OP so as to activate it. OP did activate Airtel live, MMS, NOP and easy mail. The other allegations made by the complainant are false. It is always open for the subscriber to seek new connection with respect to the service of his choice for that he is required to pay the fees. OP brought to the notice of the complainant that there is a mistake in his handset hence the activation could not be done. Complainant did get rectified the defect in his handset. So there is no willful negligence or default much less deficiency in service on the part the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant being the Medical Practitioner availed the OP connection for the use of Internet and GPRS facility on 11.12.2008 by making payment of necessary charges. OP promised to active the Internet and GPRS service within 24 hours. Complainant did comply the instructions of OP by sending SMS “PLIVE ACTV” to 222. There was no response. Then he made the SMS “MO” to 121 for the GPRS daypack and was made to pay money. Though OP collected the service charges it failed to activate the same within 24 hours and started sending the reply SMS with a inconsistent stand.<br /> <br /> 7. Correspondence made by the complainant in that regard, replies received are produced. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As it is there is no personal ill will or grudge between the complainant and the OP so as to lodge a false complaint. Complainant availed the services for the purpose of learning various latest surgical procedures. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP and inaction in time he was forced to face both mental agony and financial loss.<br /> <br /> 8. Though OP is aware of its own defects and deficiency but wanted through blame on the complainant saying that he using Nokia N-72 model there is a defect with the said model hence they could not activate. On the other hand complainant is actually using Nokia 6500 which has got all the facility for the purpose of taking connection for the Internet and GPRS. Under such circumstances the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 9. On going through para.8 of version OP admits that except the Mobile Office facility all other setting are activated. This admission itself amounts to deficiency in service. When OP collected the necessary charges it would have been more fair on their part to activate all the facilities that is available, but it is not done. Complainant for no fault of his is made to move from pillar to post nearly for a week. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.700/- paid by the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 18th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />