Haryana

Karnal

CC/211/2020

Shyam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Company - Opp.Party(s)

BhanuPartap Singh

02 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 211 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.22.06.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:02.05.2023

 

Advocate Shyam Singh son of Shri Gobind Singh, resident of House no.1455-A, Sector-6, Housing board Colony, Karnal. Aadhar card no.6360 6073 3684.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Bharti Airtel Company, Registered office at 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Phase II New Delhi through its Managing Director.

 

2.     Bharti Airtel Co. having its branch office at Ambedkar Chowk, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is consumer of OPs having Airtel Mobile connection no.98960-91416. The said connection purchased by the complainant from Karnal office in the year 2004-2005. At the time of allotting said connection to the complainant, the OPs charged about Rs.2500/- under a scheme of Airtel that such type of connection would have life time incoming facility. Accordingly, since 2004-2005 the complainant has been using the said connection as per his convenience and has getting the same recharged from time to time as per his own requirement but now from the last about one years the OPs have stopped the life time incoming facility to said connection and forcing the complainant for monthly recharge of said connection. Complainant approached and requested OPs on number of times to provide the life time incoming facility to him as he has paid for same to company but the OPs have been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Due to this act of the OPs, complainant has been suffering from great mental pain, agony and harassment. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has not shared any receipt of the deposit of Rs.2500/- as mentioned in this para. It is further submitted that in 2005, there was no scheme of life time incoming facility with the OP. It is further pleaded that in connection with the life time incoming facility, it is submitted that the same was discontinued sometime back after prior communication to the customers. It is further pleaded that a prior notice of one month was also released in newspaper in this regard.  It is further pleaded that the complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed. As regards the lifetime free incoming facility, it is submitted that since the same is not provisioned in the system of the OPs, the same cannot be provided to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 27.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs has suffered a statement that the written statement of OPs be read as their evidence.

6.             We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Complainant is having an Airtel Mobile connection no.98960-91416. The said connection has been purchased from the OPs in the year 2004-2005. As per version of the complainant, at the time of allotting said connection, the OPs have charged Rs.2500/- under a scheme of Airtel that such type of connection would have life time incoming facility. In this regard complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1.

8.             The life time incoming facility has been disconnected by the OPs on the ground that there was no such type of scheme in the year 2005 and complainant has failed to place on file receipt of Rs.2500/- as alleged by him deposited with the OPs.

9.             Complainant is enjoying the said facility since the year 2005 without paying any extra charges. If the such type of scheme was not with the OPs as to why they had provided free incoming call facility so long time. The complainant has deposited Rs.2500/- in the year 2005. Thus, it is not possible to keep the receipt with regard to deposit the money for a long time.

10.             OPs have submitted that incoming facility was disconnected sometime back after prior intimation to the customer and prior notice of one month was also published in newspaper. But OPs have neither placed on file such type of intimation nor prior notice which was alleged to be published in newspaper. Thus, OPs have miserably failed to prove its version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Thus, it has been proved on record there was a scheme of life time incoming call facility in the year 2005 and complainant had taken the said scheme by paying Rs.2500/- to the OPs. Hence, the act of the OPs while disconnecting the life time incoming call facility amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

11.           Thus, in view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to restore the life time free incoming facility to the complainant on the mobile connection no. 98960-91416. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.05.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member