Punjab

Sangrur

RBT/CC/18/302

Ashok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Asheen Khan

09 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                              Complaint No.  RBT/CC/302/2018

  Instituted on:    08.08.2018

                                                              Decided on:     09.09.2022

Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Ruldu Ram alias Ved Parshad, resident Near Bus Stand Ghagga, Tehsil Patran, Distt. Patiala (Punjab) (Aadhar Card No.5182 9166 7422).

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, 3025, Industrial Area, Phase II, Mohali (Punjab)-55.

2.     Ajay Singla, Garg Plaza Market, Jakhal Road, Patran, Tehsil Patran Distt Patiala.

             ….Opposite parties

For complainant         : Shri Asheen Khan, Adv.              

For OP No1.              : Shri S.P.Singh, Adv.

For OP No.2              : Exparte.

 

Quorum                                           

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL:    PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                            :    MEMBER

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT.        

1.             Arguments through video conferencing heard. This complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patiala in view of orders of Hon’ble Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh vide endorsement number 10226 of 26.11.2021.

2.             Complainant has approached this Forum/Commission alleging  inter-alia that the OPs launched a postpaid scheme on sim connection by giving the package i.e. the pack would be open for subscription basis, the capacity and features of the smart phone device on which it is being activated as the levels of protection varies. The complainant adopted the scheme of Rs.99/- per month which was activated on connection number 98150-20425 on mobile S7 EDGE (G 935 FD) bearing IMEI number 1-357327072762137 and the mobile was insured under the scheme.  Further case of complainant is that when the complainant was driving his motor bike, his mobile slipped out from his pocket on road and when he picked up the same, it was got fully damaged and the complainant sent email to the OP number 1. The complainant also approached OP number 2 for repairs of the mobile phone being insured, but the OP number 2 failed to do the needful. When nothing was done by the Ops then the complainant sent a legal notice dated 1.6.2018 to the Ops through his counsel, but all in vain.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to provide new mobile set of the same model and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.55,500/-.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious exercise and that the complainant is not entitled to any relief.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant be put to strict proof of facts to prove the contents of the complaint and that the complainant himself has admitted that he has subscribed to the services of Airtel Secure wherein he has agreed to the terms and conditions of Airtel Secure. It is stated that the OP number 1 has nothing to do with the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             The parties produced their respective evidence and closed thereafter.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant adopted the scheme of Rs.99/- per month which was activated on connection number 98150-20425 on his mobile S7 EDGE (G 935 FD) bearing IMEI number 1-357327072762137 and the mobile was insured under the scheme.  Further learned counsel for complainant has contended vehemently that when the complainant was driving his motor bike, his mobile slipped out from his pocket on road and when he picked up the same, it was got fully damaged and the complainant sent email to the OP number 1. The complainant also approached OP number 2 for repairs of the mobile phone being insured, but OP number 2 failed to do the needful. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 1.6.2018, copy of which on record is Ex.C-6 to the Ops through his counsel for payment of the mobile set but nothing was done.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has denied the allegations of the complainant.

6.             Ex.C-A is the detailed affidavit of complainant to support the case.  Ex.C-1 is the copy of scheme and in para number 6 of the scheme, it has been stated that the subscription is available in three forms and the complainant was provided the pack of Rs.99/- per month. Page 2 of Ex.C-2 shows that the mobile set was insured against physical and liquid damage. Ex.C-2 is the subscription details which clearly reveals that  the scheme is renewable on monthly basis and further it has been stated that the handset is secured against physical or liquid damage for Rs.40,000/-.  Ex.C-3 is the copy of mail sent to the complainant by Team Airtel Secure wherein it has been stated that the claim of the complainant was rejected due to ‘negligence’.  From this it clearly reveals that it is admitted fact of OP number 1 that the mobile set in question was insured for Rs.40,000/- but the claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground of ‘negligence’.  Since the complainant has successfully proved on record that the mobile set in question was insured with the OP number 1 for Rs.40,000/- and loss was covered against physical or liquid damage and in the present case, the mobile set damaged due to slipping from the pocket of the complainant, we feel that the OP number 1 is liable to pay the claim to the extent of insured value i.e. Rs.40,000/- and by not settling the claim of the complainant, it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of OP number 1. 

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/- being the claim amount.   We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2500/- as compensation and further an amount of Rs.2500/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of the order be made within the period of 60 days from the date of the receipt of copy of this order.

8.             This complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.

9.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                September 9, 2022.