Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/162

Mohan Singh Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel LImited - Opp.Party(s)

In person

11 Nov 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                 162 of 2019

Date of Institution:      02.07.2019

Date of Decision :      13.11.2019

 

Mohan Singh Brar son of Bagga Singh resident of House No. B-XI 461, Street No.8-L, Manjitinder Pura, Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101 through Regional Manager.

....Opposite party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Mohan Singh Brar, Advocate/ Complainant in person,    

                  Sh Manohar Lal Chugh, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking

 

cc no.-162 of 2019

directions to make functional mobile data on mobile no.98760-50660 of complainant and for further directing them to pay Rs.50,000/-as loss suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having post paid Airtel Mobile Connection on Sim No.98760-5060 of Airtel company, which was initially add on number of mobile no.98155-40660 of Manjinder Singh Brar son of complainant and complainant has been paying all the bills regularly for services provided by OP. It is submitted that on 5.05.2019, mobile data on mobile of complainant stopped working and then, complainant got registered his complaint with OP on 121 Airtel Customer Care Services Number and thereafter, OP did not provide mobile data on his mobile phone. Complainant kept obeying instructions of executives of OP regarding inserting the sim in slot no. 1 or as advised by them, but mobile data was not given on his mobile phone. It is submitted that none of the customer care executives of OP gave mobile number of any senior executive of Opposite Party Airtel Company. On 2.06.2019, on every call on his mobile, it was being replied saying ‘Number is Invalid’ and even outgoing calls were not allowed to be made and it stopped connecting. On calling on 121, attending executive told him to visit Airtel Store to get new sim.

cc no.-162 of 2019

Complainant did so but despite this, no call could be made and again on calling on 121, he was told to insert the sim in slot no.1. complainant tried his sim in both the slots as per instructions of executive of OP, but nothing fruitful was done. Despite repeated requests, Customer Care Executive neither provided e-mail Id of Nodal Office or any other high official of Airtel nor did he provide mobile number of any Senior Executive. Further submitted that on 3.06.2019, under instructions of complainant, mail was sent to Nodal Officer of Airtel by giving complete details, which was replied by Divya Naik Advisor that issue would be resolved within 72 hours and thereafter only facility for incoming and outgoing calls was restored, but till date, no mobile data is provided by OP and it is not working on his mobile phone. Complainant made several requests to OP to provide mobile data on his mobile phone, but due to deficient services, complainant has not been able to use his mobile data on his mobile phone since 5.05.2019, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. Act of OP in not providing internet facility on his mobile phone has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

 

 

cc no.-162 of 2019

3                                             Complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.07.2019 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                         On receipt of notice, Opposite Party appeared in the Forum through advocate Sh Manohar Lal Chugh, but despite availing sufficient opportunities, OP did not file reply and finding no reason to linger on the matter, defence of OP was struck off vide order dated 23.10.2019.

5                                                          Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                              There is no rebuttal from OP side as defence of Opposite Party has already been struck off.                       

7                                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant, it is observed that case of complainant is that complainant is having post paid connection of OP Comapany and he was using services of OPs, but mobile data on his mobile stopped working. He got registered complainant on Customer Care Number of OP, but OP did not provide mobile data on his mobile phone. He followed the instructions of

cc no.-162 of 2019

executives of OP regarding inserting the sim in slot no. 1 or as advised by them, but mobile data was not given on his mobile phone. Despite repeated requests, no customer care executives of OP gave mobile number of any senior executive of Opposite Party Airtel Company to him. Even on 2.06.2019, on every call on his mobile, it was being replied saying ‘Number is Invalid’ and even outgoing calls were not allowed to be made and it stopped connecting. On advise of executive of OP, complainant purchased new Airtel Sim, but nothing useful happened. Moreover,  Customer Care Executive of OP did not provide e-mail Id of Nodal Office or any other high official of Airtel and also did not provide mobile number of any Senior Executive. On 3.06.2019, under instructions of complainant, mail was sent to Nodal Officer of Airtel by giving complete details, which was replied by Divya Naik Advisor that issue would be resolved within 72 hours and thereafter only facility for incoming and outgoing calls was restored and till today, no mobile data is provided on his mobile phone. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to them. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests, Opposite party has not redressed his grievance. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

 

 

cc no.-162 of 2019

8                                              To prove his pleadings, complainant has placed on record document Ex C-2 i.e copy of e-mail dated 2.06.2019 sent by complainant to OP at 10.36 p.m. wherein he made requests to OP to provide internet facility on his mobile phone and to provide mobile data on his phone, which Airtel Company failed to provide. Ex C-3 is supplementary affidavit given by complainant in which he has narrated his entire grievance and has made requests to redress his grievance. Ex C-4 is affidavit of Manjinder Singh Brar, who has reiterated all the facts asserting that complainant could not use his mobile phone for important assignments due to stoppage of call facility by OP and complainant has suffered harassment due to deficiency in services by Opposite Party.

9                                          Though defence of Opposite party stands struck off but still his right to controvert the allegations of complainant through arguments, is fully reserved. Ld counsel for OP addressed arguments and sternly denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has filed the present complaint on false and frivolous allegations. Further averred that complainant never approached them regarding any complainant for not having mobile data on his mobile phone. There is no substance in his allegations as he was using his mobile network without any flaw. Moreover, complainant never made any complainant in this respect in

 

cc no.-162 of 2019

their service centres established in every city. There is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.      

10                                          From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in stopping call facility on his mobile phone and there is great negligence on the part of OP that they did not restore mobile data facility on mobile phone of complainant though he made several requests to executives of OP. Mere saying by ld counsel for OP that complainant did not make any complaint regarding not providing internet and mobile data on his mobile does not make them free from their liabilities. Opposite party charges every body for providing services and action of OP in not providing adequate services to its customers amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his allegations. Due to deficiency in service on the part of OP in not making functional data on mobile of complainant, complainant was forced to file the present complaint. Had Opposite party provided sufficient and effective services and restored data on the mobile of complainant and redressed the grievance of complainant, nature of complaint would have been different. Complainant was deprived of outer work due to lack of internet services as he could not receive, send or share his assignments relating to his work or other activities. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has

cc no.-162 of 2019

caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has succeeded in  proving his case and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby  allowed. Opposite party is directed to provide internet facility and make functional mobile data on the mobile of complainant immediately. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.12,000/-to complainant as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.3000/-as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 13.11.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

 Member                               President