Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/424/2016

Jaskanwar Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	424 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	15.06.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	17.08.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Jaskanwar Pal Singh s/o Sh.Lakhbir Singh, R/o H.No.814, First Floor, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh. 160014  

             ….Complainant

Versus

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101 through its Managing Director  

   

 …..Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SH. RAJAN DEWAN           PRESIDENT

MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Complainant in person.

           Opposite Party exparte.  

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                                As per the case, the complainant is a subscriber of Airtel Mobile No.9872201978.  It is stated that the complainant on 15.3.2014 received a message from the Opposite Party to the effect that his Airtel “Friend Locator” Subscription is stopped.  It is also stated that the complainant lodged complaint with the OPs that on whose request did it stop the service and also requested to restore the original friend list.  However, the Opposite Party failed to answer the core issue that why it stopped the said services of the complainant without his consent and in order to get the said service activate, they asked to dial *321*88#(Tool Free).  It is pleaded that the complainant also reported the matter to the Appellate Authority of the Opposite Party that why his above mentioned services were stopped as he never sent any such request, but no satisfactory reply was given. Alleging the said act of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service, hence this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party despite issuance of notice sent through registered post on 21.06.2016, did not turn up even after a period of 30 days, hence by raising presumption under Sub Clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.07.2016.

 

3]       Complainant led evidence in support of his contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant in person and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It is pertinent to mention here that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 15.6.2016 along with an application for condonation of delay of 3 months in filing the present complaint stating that due to ill-health of his father, who is Senior Citizen and as none is there to look after him, so was unable to file the complaint within the time frame of two years as prescribed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

6]       Notice of this complaint as well of the application for condonation of delay was sent to the Opposite Party, who despite being duly served through registered post notice sent on 21.06.2016, did not turn up even after a period of 30 days, hence by raising presumption under Sub Clause (2) of Regulation 10 of The Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 26.07.2016.  

 

7]       The Opposite Party did not turn up despite service to contradict the assertions made by the complainant in application for condonation of delay.  The application filed by the complainant to condone the delay of 3 months in filing the complaint, is allowed and the delay is condoned in view of the circumstances explained by the complainant in his application for condonation of delay, which is supported by medical certificate whereby the father of the complainant has been issued Complicated Chronic Disease Certificate.  The submissions of the complainant are duly supported by a duly sworn affidavit and thus the delay is condoned in the interest of justice. 

 

8]       So far as the allegation of the complainant for the deficient services rendered by the Opposite Party is concerned, we find merit in the complaint filed by the complainant for the reasons stated hereunder:-

         It is the main grouse of the complainant that his ‘Friend Locator’ Subscription service was abruptly stopped by the Opposite Party by sending a message on 15.3.2014.  The complainant claimed that all his efforts to know the reason for stopping his ‘Friend Locator’ Subscription service and request to restore original friend list, remained unsuccessful, record shows that he was completely harassed by not supplying the reason for the same, nor his original friend list was restored.  At one point of time he was told that due to ‘web request’, his ‘Friend Locator’ Subscription service has been stopped, whereas the complainant by way of duly sworn affidavit claimed that he did not made any such request.  The record before us, placed in the form of evidence filed by the complainant, is a bundle of e-mail correspondences exchanged between the parties, which in nutshell reveals that ‘Friend Locator’ Subscription service, got restored on the mobile number of the complainant and the Opposite Party admits the mistake and tendered the apology at its end, but failed to justify the disconnection despite being asked repeatedly, which proves the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

9]       In addition, all the allegations made by the complainant against the Opposite Party have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as the Opposite Party did not appear, despite service of notice, which shows that the Opposite Party has nothing to say in its defence or they admit the claim of the complaint.

   

10]      In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party has been proved and thus, the complaint deserves to be allowed against the OP. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay a lumpsum compensation amount of Rs.5000/- for causing harassment and for trusting litigation upon him.

 

11]      The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite party within 45 days of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on the above awarded amount from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

17^th August, 2016         

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER