BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.413 of 2018

Date of Instt. 05.10.2018

Date of Decision: 25.06.2019

Anil Thakur S/o Late Shri Sampuran Singh R/o 902, Arjun Nagar, Opposite Railway Colony, Jalandhar-144001.

..........Complainant

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.

Second Address:- Camble Communication, WG 596, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Near Jyoti Chownk, Jalandhar through its Managing Director/Directors/Principal Officer.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Athul Malhotra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

OP exparte.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the OPs are engaged in providing mobile and other services through out the country for consideration through its branch office at Jalandhar. The complainant is a consumer of goods and services provided by OP for consideration. Complainant was using a mobile number 9872312209 for the last about 14 years continuously. Complainant had got registered and connected the said mobile phone number with all of the government departments and offices and private operators and service providers. The complainant received a phone call from OP's office, asking the complainant to update Aadhar Number of the complainant with the said mobile number on toll free number 14546 from the said Airtel Mobile number, but inadvertently the complainant feed Aadhar Number of his minor daughter Ms. Bhavika Thakur and to surprise of complainant, OP did not even verify the said mistake of wrong Aadhar number, but on the contrary, OP changed the name of the said mobile number from the name of complainant to his minor daughter Ms. Bhavika Thakur. Moreover, OP had also changed the usage plan of complainant due to which complainant was receiving inflated bills. Earlier OP had admitted their mistake and allowed six months discount to complainant so as to prevail on complainant to stay with OP and do not port the said mobile number.

2. That complainant was shocked to see change of name of said mobile number from his name to the name of his daughter in the bill dated 24.04.2018. The complainant immediately approached OPs personally and also through emails dated 30.04.2018. Thereafter, complainant has approached and requested OPs many times personally as well as through emails to rectify the mistake and further to revert to earlier plan of complainant, but OPs have failed to do so till date. Further complainant even requested OPs to correct the fathers name, address etc. of her daughter, but OPs failed to do so. Due to change of the mobile number of the complainant in the name of his minor daughter, all the transactions of complainant for payments and other communications have been standstill and complainant had to get issue another mobile number, again set up and update another mobile number with Government Departments and private service providers. Moreover, no agreement or contract can be entered into with a minor and daughter of complainant is a minor. Due to the above said facts, there is deficiency in services, negligence, unfair trade practice as well as restrictive trade practices on the part of the OPs due to which complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment, inconveniences, losses etc. and accordingly, a cause of action accrued to the complainant for filing the instant complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to rectify mistake by changing the name of said mobile connection No.98723-12209 from Bhavika to Anil Thakur/complainant with immediate effect and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant for the above mentioned deficiency in service and negligence and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, but despite service OP did not come present and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte.

4. In order to prove its exparte claim, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. In order to fortify the story elaborated in the complaint, the complainant tendered his own affidavit Ex.CA, whereby reasserted the entire facts as detailed in the complaint. Apart from that complainant has also produced on the file photostat copy of the bill Ex.C-1, which stands in the name of complainant Anil Thakur, having Airtel No.98723-12209 and paid the bill, whatsoever amount mentioned in the said bill. The aforesaid bill Ex.C-1, in regard to aforesaid mobile number, stands in the name of the Anil Thakur, but the second bill for the month of April 2018 Ex.C-2 stands in the name of Ms. Bhavika Thakur and complainant also brought on the file photostat copy of the Aadhar Card of Bhavika Thakur as well as photostat copy of his own Aadhar Card Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4 and further complainant produced on the file a copy of email dated 30.04.2018 Ex.C-5, through this email the complainant make a request to the OP that the name of the complainant have been wrongly changed in regard to ownership of the aforesaid mobile and further make a complaint that his plan was also changed, which is illegal. Similarly, the complainant also send an other email-complaint dated 30.04.2018 Ex.C-6 and made same allegation as made in the previous email, then its reply was given by the OPs and whereby the complainant was asked to visit the nearest Airtel Relationship Centre and submit the following documents, which are mentioned in Sr. No.1 to 7 in the aforesaid email Ex.C-7, but in response to email of the OP, the complainant sent two other emails Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 and categorically reported to the OP that no person with status i.e. Miss Bhavika Thakur is in existence and accordingly, the matter of the complainant for change of the name, from the name of his daughter Bhavika Thakur to the name of the complainant still pending.

7. Now, question arises whether there is any negligence or deficiency on the part of the OP and obviously the answer of this query is 'No'. The complainant himself admitted his own guilt in the complaint in Para No.4 that inadvertently he feed Aadhar number of his minor daughter Bhavika Thakur and whatsoever complainant himself feed the Aadhar number, the same is pick up by the system and accordingly, the mobile number stand change in the name of that person, whose Aadhar Card was feeded in the system. Thereafter, the complainant alleged that the said name be changed again and mobile number be again transferred in the name of the complainant, no doubt, the complainant has make a request to the OPs through email Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and again its appropriate and relevant reply has been given by the OP, by suggesting to contact or visit nearest Airtel Relationship Centre and submit the documents as mentioned as Sr. No.1 to 7, but the complainant himself again started correspondence with the OP that in his family as well as in his contact there exist no person with status of Miss Bhavika Thakur. This reply of the complainant, vide emails Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10 again shown that there is no negligence, deficiency on the part of the OP because the complainant himself making befool of the OP by stating in the aforesaid emails that in his family as well as in his contact there exist no person with status Ms. Bhavika Thakur, whereas the complainant himself described in the complaint that Ms. Bhavika Thakur is minor daughter of the complainant and if any NOC is required from the side of minor daughter Bhavika Thakur, then the complainant himself submitted alongwith her birth certificate, being a guardian of the said child, but the complainant did not follow the rules rather drag the OP in the instant litigation and accordingly, we find that there is no deficiency, negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is without merit, the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

25.06.2019 Member President