Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/294/2013

K.R.Aravamudhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharati Airtel Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

J.Antony Jesus

24 Sep 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 25.02.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 24.09.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.294/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 24^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

                                 

K.R. Aravamudhan,

S/o. Late S. Rangaswamy,

No.14, Justice Sundaram Road,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                      .. Complainant.                                              

 

      ..Versus..

 

1. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director

Aravali Crescent,

No.1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi – 110 070.

 

2. Bharti Airtel Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

Oceanic Towers, 6^th Floor,

No.101, Santhome High Road,

Santhome,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. J. Antony Jesus & others

Counsel for opposite party   :  M/s. Shivakumar & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.2,400/- which they received illegally from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he had two Airtel landline connection vide Nos.45500910 and 42612941 in flat No.364/3, Sunshine Apartment, Belly Area, Anna Nagar, Chennai.  Further the complainant submits that during the last week of June 2012, he informed the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant is shifting his residence to Mylapore and requested for transferring the connection to Mylapore residence.  The Customer Care of the opposite party promptly sent an employee by name Mr. Bhuvan on 21.06.2012 also and the request of transfer of telephone connection was accepted by the opposite parties after obtaining signatures in the duly filled up certain forms.   A letter of the closure of the two existing connections was also obtained from the complainant by the opposite parties.   Further the complainant submits that the representative of the opposite party brought two old telephone instruments from Anna Nagar and installed in Mylapore residence vide Nos.45568245 and 45570245 against the new instrument claimed by the complainant.  Further the complainant submits that to his utter shock and surprise, he received an intimation from the opposite party that he should pay a sum of Rs.2,400/- towards the telephone charges of Anna Nagar residence though it was disconnected.  The complainant vehemently argued that even after assuring for disconnection of telephone number of Anna Nagar residence and installation to new connection at Mylapore residence the opposite parties without disconnecting the telephone numbers of Anna Nagar residence gave a connection at Mylapore Branch with old instrument.  Further the complainant submits that he was compelled to pay a sum of Rs.2,400/- as arrears since, the opposite parties has not disconnected the telephone connections as assured by them.   Further the complainant submits that on 01.09.2012, the complainant issued a letter to the 2^nd opposite party demanding refund of the amount paid / collected erroneously.  The opposite parties after receiving the letter, sent bill dated:06.09.2012 for telephone No.45500910 demanding further sum of Rs.258.68 towards monthly charges.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:11.09.2012 but the opposite parties has neither replied nor come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties state that two Airtel landline connections were given vide Nos.45500910 & 42612941 to the complainant.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant has not informed the 2^nd opposite party to transfer the connections to his new residence in the last week of June 2012. Further the opposite parties state that only on 13.08.2012, the complainant requested for termination of both telephone connections.  Hence the bills for June & July were raised by this opposite party.  The telephone charges claimed solely on the basis of the telephone bills generated for the period ending on 12.08.2012.   Since the complainant has requested to terminate the connection only on 13.08.2012, the invoice dated:06.09.2012 was raised for Rs.258.68 for the period of activation for the connection was waived as a matter of goodwill gesture of the opposite party was accepted by the complainant.  Further the opposite parties state that the complainant has to prove that he has given letters and application for due cancellation of telephone connections in the Anna Nagar House during the month of June 2012.  The allegation that one Bhuvan and Kavitha obtained letters etc are imaginary.  An amount of Rs.2,400/- was claimed by the opposite parties towards telephone charges for the usage of telephone making calls.   Since the complainant has made requisition only on 13.08.2012 for due disconnection, the opposite parties rightly collected the telephone charges and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties is filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get refund of Rs.2,400/- paid towards telephone bills as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and mental agony and deficiency in service and cost as prayed for?

 

5.  

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.The complainant pleaded and contended that he had two Airtel landline connection vide Nos.45500910 and 42612941 in flat No.364/3, Sunshine Apartment, Belly Area, Anna Nagar, Chennai is admitted.Further the complainant contended that during the last week of June 2012, he informed the 2^nd opposite party that the complainant is shifting his residence to Mylapore and requested for transferring the connection to Mylapore residence.The Customer Care of the opposite party promptly sent an employee by name Mr. Bhuvan on 21.06.2012 also, and the request of transfer of telephone connection was accepted by the opposite parties after obtaining signatures in the duly filled up certain forms.A letter of closure of the two existing connections was also obtained from the complainant by the opposite parties.But the complainant has not filed any documents except Ex.A1 dated:01.09.2012 a letter issued to the 2^nd opposite party stating all the above said facts which was duly acknowledged by him.Further the contention of the complainant is that the representative of the opposite party brought two old telephone instruments from Anna Nagar and installed in Mylapore residence vide Nos.45568245 and 45570245 against the new instrument claimed by the complainant.

6.  
7.  

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.2,400/- (Rupees Two thousand and four hundred only) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of September 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of letter sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party
		Copy of telephone bill
		Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant
		Copy of acknowledgement card of the receipt of the above legal notice

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: 

		Copy of statement of Accounts for the line No.04442612941
		Copy of statement of Accounts for the line No.04445500910

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT