Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. Sh.Vinay Kashyap, complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he is having Airtel Mobile connection bearing No.9872620680, relationship No.107-103487487 and using the same from last so many years. The Complainant further alleges that the connection in question is postpaid connection and is under the monthly plan of Rs.399/-. The Complainant further alleges that as per the terms and conditions, Opposite Party No.1 is bound to send the bill regularly alongwith detail and the Complainant has to deposit the usage charges. The Complainant received bills upto April, 2017. Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized Airtel Dealer whereas Opposite Party No. 3 is also authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant had deposited the last bill on 20.04.2017 to Opposite Party No.2 against receipt No. 58830. In the month of May 2017, the Complainant received a message to deposit the consumption charges without receiving the bill, to which the Complainant deposited Rs.1000/- on 30.5.2017 on the basis of message received by the Complainant without any bill. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint with Customer Care of the company and they assured that in future the bill will be dispatched, but inspite of assurance, the Opposite Parties never send the bills. The Complainant received the bills from June 2017 upto December 2017 at very high rate and on enquiry, the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 told that the basic plan of the connection of the Complainant has been changed on 29.5.2017. The Complainant told the customer care that without his consent, how the company can change the tariff at its own. Again the company had assured that they will change the plan at its old rate, but to no effect. The Complainant had deposited Rs.550/- with Opposite Party No.2 against the previous balance of Rs.547.83 paisa, but Opposite Party No.2 has not issued any receipt. The Complainant again deposited Rs.900/- on 30.01.2018 against receipt No.451 with Opposite Party No. 3, but again Opposite Party No. 3 did not send the necessary intimation to Opposite Party No.1 and the amount of Rs.200/- has been added on account of late fee. The Complainant again approached Opposite Party No. 3 and only thereafter, the amount of Rs.900/- has been credited in the account and they also assured that the late fee payment of Rs.200/- will be waived of, but the said amount has not been waived off upto this date. The Complainant further alleges that Opposite Party No.1 has charged the excess amount from him w.e.f. 29.5.2017 by change the plan without the consent of the Complainant and in this way, the Opposite Parties have charged Rs.800/- per month wrongly alongwith GST and other charges, hence said amount of Rs.6,400/- alognwith GST charges are recoverable from Opposite Party No.1. Besides this, the late fee charges which have been wrongly added, are also liable to be refunded or waived of and hence due to unwarranted and illegal acts of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has suffered loss and he has been harassed unnecessarily. The Complainant further alleges that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties is deficient one. Hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount referred to above alongwith interest @ 12% per annum.
- The Opposite Parties be also directed to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as costs of this complaint.
2. Upon notice, none has come present on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 and hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 07.05.2018 of this Forum.
3. On the other hand, initially Opposite Party No. 2 appeared through Sh.Gagan Nahuria, but lateron none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 nor filed the written reply on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 and as such, Opposite Party No.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.05.2018 of this Forum. However, on 13.06.2018 Sh.Arpit Singla, Advocate appeared and filed power of attorney on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 alongwith application for setting aside exparte proceedings or in the alternative to allow the application to join the proceedings and to submit the written statement. Vide order dated 18.06.2018, this Forum has allowed Sh.Aprit Singla, Advocate only to join the proceedings at this stage. But again none has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 and again vide order dated 24.08.2018 Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte. However, at the stage of arguments, Sh.M.L.Chugh, Advocate started appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 but thereafter nobody has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.1.
4. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the Complainant, perused the written arguments and have carefully gone through the documents placed on record.
6. From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the Complainant is having Airtel Mobile connection bearing No.9872620680, relationship No.107-103487487 and using the same from last so many years. The contention of the Complainant is that the connection in question is postpaid connection and is under the monthly plan of Rs.399/-. It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions, Opposite Party No.1 is bound to send the bill regularly alongwith detail and the Complainant has to deposit the usage charges. The Complainant received bills upto April, 2017. The Complainant had deposited the last bill on 20.04.2017 to Opposite Party No.2 against receipt No. 58830. In the month of May 2017, the Complainant received a message to deposit the consumption charges without receiving the bill, to which the Complainant deposited Rs.1000/- on 30.5.2017 on the basis of message received by the Complainant without any bill. Thereafter, the Complainant lodged a complaint with Customer Care of the company and they assured that in future the bill will be dispatched, but inspite of assurance, the Opposite Parties never send the bills. The Complainant received the bills from June 2017 upto December 2017 at very high rate and on enquiry, the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 told that the basic plan of the connection of the Complainant has been changed on 29.5.2017. The Complainant told the customer care that without his consent, how the company can change the tariff at its own. Again the company had assured that they will change the plan at its old rate, but to no effect. The Complainant had deposited Rs.550/- with Opposite Party No.2 against the previous balance of Rs.547.83 paisa, but Opposite Party No.2 has not issued any receipt. The Complainant again deposited Rs.900/- on 30.01.2018 against receipt No.451 with Opposite Party No. 3, but again Opposite Party No. 3 did not send the necessary intimation to Opposite Party No.1 and the amount of Rs.200/- has been added on account of late fee. The Complainant again approached Opposite Party No. 3 and only thereafter, the amount of Rs.900/- has been credited in the account and they also assured that the late fee payment of Rs.200/- will be waived of, but the said amount has not been waived off upto this date. The Complainant further contended that Opposite Party No.1 has charged the excess amount from him w.e.f. 29.5.2017 by change the plan without the consent of the Complainant and in this way, the Opposite Parties have charged Rs.800/- per month wrongly alongwith GST and other charges, hence said amount of Rs.6,400/- alognwith GST charges are recoverable from Opposite Party No.1. Besides this, the late fee charges which have been wrongly added, are also liable to be refunded or waived of and hence the Complainant is entitled to get the refund of the deposited amount of Rs.6400/- from the Opposite Parties alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of causing him mental torture and tension and illegal harassment and Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.20,000/- as damages for mental tension and harassment and agony. It is further contended that the Opposite Parties were asked many a times to refund the amount but the Opposite Parties have refused to admit the rightful claim of the Complainant.
7. But it is not the denial of the case that connection in question is postpaid connection and is under the monthly plan of Rs.399/- and as per the contention of the Complainant, now Opposite Party No.1 has ifso facto changed the monthly tariff plan from existing Rs.399/- to Rs.800/- and accordingly charged for eight months @ Rs.800/- instead of Rs.399/- per month. In this way, Opposite Party No.1 has charged the complainant in excess i.e. Rs.401/- per month for 8 months. So, as per this calculation, Opposite Party No.1 has charged Rs.3208/- in excess during that 8 months, to which he is entitled to recover.
8. On the other hand, the evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed written statement in their defence despite sufficient opportunities provided to them. In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint. The complainant has sought for direction from the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.6,400/- deposited in excess without his fault and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of causing him mental torture and tension and illegal harassment and Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.20,000/- as damages for mental tension and harassment and agony. In our considered view, Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.3,208/- (as calculated above), to the complainant. But however, the claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of causing him mental torture and tension and illegal harassment and Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service besides Rs.20,000/- as damages for mental tension and harassment and agony, is concerned, the same appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would be fully met if the complainant is awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,500/- and we award the same accordingly.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the instant complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3,208/- (Three thousands two hundred and eight only) to the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.2,500/- (two thousands five hundred only) for his harassment and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No.1 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
10. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint. This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Forum since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Forum is doing additional duty at District Consumer Forum, Barnala and Administration Duty at District Consumer Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib. There are only two working days in a week when the quorum of this Forum remains complete.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated: 17.05.2019.
(Parampal Kaur) (Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member President
