STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | | 291 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | | 08.10.2018 |
Date of Decision | | 10.10.2018 |
Harsh Behal s/o Late Sh.Shori Lal, R/o # 703/12, Sector 26, Chandigarh
……Appellant
V e r s u s
- Bharti Airtel Limited having registered office at Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi 110070 through its CEO
- Appellate Officer, having its Office at Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Tech. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh 160101
- Regional Head having its Office at Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Tech Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh 160101
…….Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 23.08.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 884/2017.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
MR.RAJESH K.ARYA,MEMBER
Argued by: Mr.Harsh Behal, appellant in person.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against order dated 23.08.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), dismissing his complaint.
2. It was grievance of the complainant that in the month of May, 2017, he made a request to the OPs to change his payment Plan from Explore 699 to Plan Infinity 349 qua use of his mobile connection. The OPs failed to give effect to his request and for the months of June, July, August,2017, for the use of mobile connection, the bill was sent in terms of the old plan, as referred to above. It was further proved on record that when again request was made qua change of payment plan, OPs waived of excess amount charged for the above said period. Despite that, payment plan was not changed, upon which legal notice was sent. When he failed to yield any result, he filed a consumer complaint before the Forum.
3. During pendency of the complaint, the Forum issued an interim order on 8.3.2018 directing OPs not to disconnect service to the mobile phone of the complainant. However, directions issued were violated and the facility of outgoing calls was disconnected. Taking note of the same, the Forum awarded penalty of Rs.25,000/- which stood paid to the appellant/complainant. Noting that excess amount charged has already been reversed and the penalty amount already stood paid, the complaint was dismissed.
4. It is grievance of the complainant that on account of physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him further compensation should have been awarded. We are not going to accept the argument as for the mistake committed, the OPs have already paid huge amount to the complainant. No case is made out to interfere in the order, under challenge.
5. 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.
6 . Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
7. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
