DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO- 113/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
02.03.2017 22.03.2017 28.09.2018
Complainant :- 1. Mr. Goutam Ganguly
Son of Pranab Ganguly of B-005,
Oxford View, 32/36,
Diamond Harbour Road, Behala,
Kolkata- 700008.
Represented by his father Pranab Ganguly
=Vs=
Opposite Party/s:- 1. Bharati Airtel Ltd.
2. Sailendra Tiwari-
Collections and Retentions-
WBO of Bharati Airtel ltd.
3. The Manager Bharati Airtel Ltd.
Billing Dept. of Infinity Building,
5th floor, Sector- V, Salt Lake,
Electronics Complex, Block- GP,
Kolkata- 700091, P.S- Electronic Complex
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder ………………………Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not take any step for rectification of the telephone bill and issuance of fresh rectified bill till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he is one of the subscribers of the postpaid service of the OPs having contact no-9831298140. The relationship number is 1194218181.
The Complainant has been using the said service for a considerable period of time. During this period the OPs have generated telephone bill and he used to pay the entire bill amount in a regular manner. The Complainant had also duly paid the bill amount for the period from 26.08.2016 to 25.09.2016. In the meantime the Complainant went to Moscow, Russia on 20.09.2016 and he has been staying there till now. The fact was duly communicated to the OPs through their customer care service. As such it may be presumed that naturally the use of the said connection would reduce considerably.
Cont……………….2
:2:
But he became surprised when he received the bill from the OPs for the period from 26.09.2016 to 25.10.2016 amounting to Rs.19,276.34/-. After receipt the bill the Complainant immediately contacted with the OPs requesting to send the details of the bill in respect of the said connection. Upon receipt of the details the Complainant got shocked as the details was based on false data base information. It is pertinent to mention that the father of the Complainant is also a postpaid customer of the OPs having connection no-9831250210 and the consumer number is 1194176440. The Complainant also collected the details from the OPs in respect of his father’s connection. When he tallied and compared the both details, he found anomaly by and between the two details i.e. calls were made from his number to his father’s number. But when the details of his father had gone through it was found that calls were made from his father’s number to his number. Moreover the details showed the calls form one number to another number differs completely pertaining to the time and period. As for example from the statement of the Complainant as provided by the OPs on the date of 26.09.2016 could not be tallied with the time and period with the detals of his father as provided by the OPs. Such malafide service cannot be expected from the reputed concern like the OPs. There are several contradiction by and between the details of him and his father. The OPs without verifying anything raised the bill for the period from 26.10.2016 to 25.11.2016 for Rs.19,276.34/-. The Complainant issued legal letter to the OPs explaining the disputes, but the OPs have bypassed the said letter cunningly and sent a letter to the Complainant claiming the said amount for the said period. As the Ops did not take any step for redressal of his grievance, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to rectify the bill for the period from 26.09.2016 to 25.10.2016 and issuance of fresh rectified telephone bill for the said period, to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,000/- due to harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost to him.
After admission hearing notices were issued to the OPs, record reveals that inspite of receipt of the notices the OPs did not turn up to contest the complaint either orally or by filing written version. Hence this Ld. Forum was pleased to pass an order that the complaint will run exparte against the OPs.
On the date of argument i.e. 19.09.2018 adjournment was sought for on behalf of the Complainant. The record speaks that on 19.01.2018 and 20.03.2018 the Complainant took adjournment and on those days this complaint was fixed for argument. For this reason 0n 19.09.2018 we were not inclined to allow the adjournment petition on behalf of the Complainant and accordingly it was rejected. As the evidence of the Complainant is on record, hence after going through the documents as annexed by the Complainant and the evidence we are passing this judgment.
Cont……………..3
:3:
It is seen by us that the Complainant has alleged that an inflated telephone bill was issued in respect of his postpaid telephone number obtained from the OPs for the period from 26.09.2016 to 25.10.2016 to the tune of Rs.19,276.34/-. Upon receipt of the said arbitrary bill he contacted with the OPs and sought for the details for the said period. Accordingly the details were provided and after going through the same it was found by him that there are several anomalies in the said bill and the bill was not issued in a correct and proper manner. Being frustrated with the service of the OPs he sent legal notice to the OPs requesting for rectification of the said bill, but to no effect till filing of this complaint, hence this complaint is initiated by him seeking for rectification of the questioned bill along with other reliefs.
In this respect we may mention to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/s. Singla Builders & Promoters Limited vs Aman Kumar Garg, reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC), decided on 16.10.2017, wherein it has been held that ‘non-filing of written version to complaint amounts to admission of allegations levelled against them in consumer complaint.’
The abovementioned Ruling can be applicable in the case in hand as in the instant complaint inspite of receipt of notices the OPs chose not to contest the complaint by filing written version.
Therefore in view of the said judgment the allegations as made out by the Complainant in the petition of complaint can be admitted as no rebuttal is forthcoming against such allegations.
As the Complainant has successfully proved his complaint by adducing cogent document, hence the complaint is allowed.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint no-113/2017 is hereby allowed exparte against the OPs without any cost. The OPs are directed to rectify the question telephone bill for the period from 26.09.2016 to 25.10.2016 and issue fresh rectified bill to the complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this judgment. The Complainant shall pay the fresh and rectified bill amount within the stipulated period without any fail. There is no order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
