STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

Anjali Bhandari daughter of Sh. Jitender Bhandari, Resident of H.No.27-A, Bhambri Enclave, Ananta Apartment, Gazipur Road, Zirakpur (SAS Nagar), Mohali (Punjab).

                                                                         ….Appellant                                                                                                               Versus

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited through its CEO/Circle Incharge for Punjab Circle, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.

2.     Airtel Store through its Retail Manager/Store Supervisor having Sales Code No.8128, SCO 407-408, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

                                                                                        ……Respondents

                 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986                           against  order dated 23.04.2018 passed by District Consumer                          Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U. T. Chandigarh in C.C.No.                      15/2018..

Argued by:  Mr.Arun Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

BEFORE:       JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                       MR.DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                  Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 23.04.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(I), U.T. Chandigarh (for short the Forum only),  vide which a consumer complaint filed by her was partly accepted. 

 2.           Before the Forum, it was case of the complainant that she had used her postpaid telephone connection between 22.10.2017 to 24.11.2017. Her telephone number was registered with the bank and other institutions for conducting transactions. However, thereafter arbitrarily the said number was changed. Hence, alleging deficiency in providing service, a consumer complaint was filed before the Forum.  

3.         Upon notice, reply was filed. There is denial of the facts of the case. It is, however,  admitted that postpaid connection bearing No.98154-59954 was issued in favour of the appellant/complainant.  She used it for about a month between 22.10.2017 to 24.1.2017. The said number was earlier allotted to one Navita Bhandari  whereof 2012. It was deactivated when she failed to pay the charges. However, thereafter she paid the outstanding amount and got it reactivated. Consequently, the number allotted to the complainant was changed.     

4.            Both the parties led evidence. The Forum, on analysis of pleadings of the parties, evidence on record, and the arguments addressed, allowed the complaint granting following relief to the complainant ;

(i)To immediately restore the mobile No.98154-59954 in the name of the complainant. However, alternatively, if there is any hitch to get it disconnected from Ms. Navita Bhandari and assigned in the name of the complainant, then the OPs shall pay Rs.50,000/ -to the complainant as damages for the unfair trade practice on their part.

(ii)To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to her;

(iii)To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation

                It was ordered that the mobile number be restored in the name of the complainant and if there is any hitch in doing so, compensation amount to the tune of Rs.50,000/- be paid to the complainant. Further compensation of Rs.10,000/- was granted towards providing deficient service and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

5.            It is grievance of the appellant/complainant that the compensation awarded is on the lower side.  It is stated by her Counsel that the telephone number, in question, was registered with the bank etc.,however, she could not conduct transactions which resulted loss to her and as such, she had prayed for enhancement of  compensation amount.

6.           We have perused the record. No evidence about sufferance of loss has been placed on record. It is also not  proved on record with which  bank and  institution   mobile number, in question, was registered for conducting  future transactions.  The compensation awarded by the Forum appears to be quite adequate and justified.   No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.

7.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld

8.             Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

9.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.