Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/452

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharati Crescent - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Kumar Adv.

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 452 of 13.06.2016

Date of Decision            :   21.02.2017

 

Krishan Kumar s/o Sh.Durga Dutt r/o H.No.3147, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s Bharati Croscent I, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase II, Delhi-110070 through its Incharge/Manager.

2.M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park in Bharti Airtel Campus, I.T.Park, Chandigarh-160017, through its Incharge/Manager.

3.M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Airten Cvon Retail Store, SCF 42-C, Main Market, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana through its Incharge/Manager.

 

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        Sh.Munish Kumar, Advocate

For OPs                         :        Ex-parte

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant got one connection of Airtel bearing No.0161-461446 along with internet facility. That connection was availed for getting connection of 3g last since 5-6 years back and the same was to continue. Complainant also purchased modem by spending Rs.3500/- as per instructions of Ops. Complainant never used the internet at his own but the internet facility was availed just to receive a call. Son of the complainant is settled in USA. Every time, the complainant used to receive a call from his son, due to which, he never felt necessity of giving call. For last about 1 year, the complainant found difficulty in internet provided by Ops in receiving the call from USA. Complainant approached OP3, who sent its representative. First of all, they started a package in the mobile phone of the complainant. Although, 3g internet service provided by the Ops was already working in the mobile phone of the complainant, but despite that package was started. Inspite of that proper calls not received by the complainant from his son from USA. Complainant approached OP3, who asked for purchase of another modem by spending Rs.8999/-. Complainant made payment of that amount vide receipt No.53728163 dated 16.6.2015. All this was done by the complainant at the asking of Ops. About a week ago, complainant  got knowledge as if he was cheated by the Ops. First of all the complainant used    3G and then purchased a modem. Thereafter, he had to pay Rs.250/- per month extra for the last one year due to start of package. Again Rs.8999/- were charged from the complainant for installation of 4G in the mobile, which is of an Apple company. Now the complainant has got knowledge that Apple phone has given the facility to the customer of 4G, but despite that Ops installed the instrument of 4G as well as 3G on charges as referred above. Ops were charging thrice for providing of  facility of internet i.e. 3g, but for receiving one call only. Complainant claims that he is going to file a complaint u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC against the officials of Ops sitting at Chandigarh, Delhi and Ludhiana. By filing this complaint, prayer made for directing Ops to pay Rs.30,000/-(extra charged) along with Rs.4 lac on account of mental torture, pain and suffering and harassment suffered by the complainant.

2.                Ops are ex-parte in this case.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C44 and then closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through minutely.

5.                Receipt Ex.C1 shows as if amount of Rs.8999/- was charged from the complainant on 16.6.2015, when modem was alleged to be installed. In bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 each, after charging mobile internet usage, concession of same amount has been granted by way of discount as is the charges of mobile internet usage. In view of this concession, it is obvious that the Ops have not charged any mobile internet usage virtually from the complainant, but monthly charges along with taxes alone recovered from the complainant through all these bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C9. Even through bills Ex.C10, Ex.C13, Ex.C16, Ex.C18, Ex.C20, Ex.C23, Ex.C26, Ex.C29, Ex.C32, Ex.C34, Ex.C37 and Ex.C38, monthly charges alone collected from the complainant. All the amounts claimed through these bills paid through receipts Ex.C11, Ex.C12, Ex.C14, Ex.C15, Ex.C17, Ex.C19, Ex.C21, Ex.C24, Ex.C25, Ex.C27, Ex.C28, Ex.C30, Ex.C31, Ex.C33, Ex.C35 and Ex.C40. These bills do not at all show that amount of Rs.250/- charged extra from the complainant for the last one year prior to the filing of this complaint as alleged in the para no.5 of the complaint. So, assertions of charging of Rs.250/- per month extra for the last one year are false, being not substantiated by any record. If the complainant just to receive the mobile call from his son settled in USA, then he has to bear the installation charges of modem as paid through Ex.C1. As the installation of the modem charges accepted through issued receipts and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. No proof produced to show that 4g modem installation on the mobile phone of Apple Company is not required except the affidavit of complainant. Existence of non-requirement of installation of 4g in mobile phone of Apple Company not proved and as such, allegations in this respect are vague. Story regarding charging of extra monthly charges is not true. Rather, the monthly charges for use of the mobile claimed through bills, which paid through receipts as referred above and as such, complaint virtually has been filed just for putting pressure on the Ops without any substance.

6.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                              (G.K. Dhir)

                                              Member                                                  President

Announced in Open Forum                                                          Dated:21.02.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.