Date of Filing:13.01.2009 Date of Order:18.02.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 136 OF 2009 Nasruddin Durani S.S. S/o. Ex-SGT Mohammed Salahuddin # 03, Shettyhalli, Jalahalli West Post Bangalore 560 015 Complainant V/S Bharti Airtel Limited Regional Office 55, Divya Sree Towers Bannerghatta Road Bangalore 560 029 Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant stating that he is a customer of mobile phone Airtel No. 9880303376 under Bharti Airtel. He is the user of Airtel Mobile phone since June 2004 and has been paying the monthly usage charges regularly without fail. Complainant has received the bill No. 859515880 dated 21.12.2008 for mobile services for the bill period 20.11.2008 to 19.12.2008. It shows total current charges amounting to Rs. 2,494.15 for all types of call charges and taxes for Rs. 308.23. It is submitted that the said bill shows ISD call for 3 Hours 8 Minutes 9 Seconds used for 8 times which cost Rs. 1784.80 & taxes Rs. 220.57 for a single day pulse transaction. It is submitted that on enquiry from the opposite party it was revealed that ISD call was made to some one in Bulgaria country where as complainant never made such call to Bulgaria. There was nobody related to make call. Even, the complainant has not heard such country name. Discrepancy of this kind was brought to the notice of opposite party repeatedly. Opposite party is reluctant to admit his own negligence and not willing to waive off the erratic transaction as reflected in the bill. Opposite party arbitrarily forcing to pay for the unused ISD Bill. The complainant prayed that suitable order be passed to restrain the opposite party from charging the unjust payment and rescue the complainant from such payment in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The complainant has also produced affidavits and the disputed bill. 3. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. There is no defence version on behalf of the opposite party. The opposite party though served with notice through registered post has not chosen to appear before this forum. It appears that the opposite party has no defence to make. That is why the opposite party has remained absent. There are absolutely no reasons to disbelieve the facts stated by the complainant in his complaint. The complainant has categorically stated that he has not used or made any ISD Call. The complainant submitted that he had no relatives or any body in Bulgaria country and even he has not heard the name of Bulgaria Country. Therefore, the complainant submitted that the question of making ISD Call does not arise at all. It is the case of the complainant that on account of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite party he has been unnecessarily charged for ISD calls. Therefore, the complainant requested that opposite party be restrained from charging and recovering the ISD Call bill amount of Rs. 1,784.80 and Taxes Rs. 220.57. The request of the complainant is quite just, fair and reasonable. It deserves to be accepted. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 4. The Complaint is allowed. The ISD Charges shown at Rs. 1,784.80 and Taxes 220.57 in the bill dated 21.12.2008 for Airtel No. 9880303376 is hereby set aside. It is hereby declared and held that opposite party is not entitled to recover the ISD charges from the complainant. 5. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 6. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009. Order accordingly, PRESIDENT We concur the above findings. MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
