Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/303/2015

Mr. Anil Sareen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Gupta

14 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/303/2015
Date of Institution	:	19/05/2015
Date of Decision	:	14/10/2015

 

Mr. Anil Sareen s/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sareen r/o Flat No.140, Panchkula Heights, Peer Mushalla, Behind Sector – 20, District Panchkula, Haryana.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.      Bharti Airtel Limited having its registered office at Aravali Cresent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi–110070, India through its Managing Director.

2.      Bharti Airtel Limited having its office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Phase-II, Manimajra, Chandigarh (UT) through its Manager.

……Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Amit Gupta, Counsel for complainant
		Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OPs

                       

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Anil Sareen, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that acting on the assurance and promises made by the OPs regarding world class services, he had subscribed to the mobile connection bearing No.8146999991. The complainant was using the said mobile services and was regularly making the payment against the bills/invoices generated by the OPs.

According to the complainant, on 24.4.2015 without any intimation/notice, the aforesaid mobile connection was deactivated/stopped by the OPs. The complainant immediately approached the OPs, but, no satisfactory response was given. The complainant made many requests to the office of the OPs to activate the services and he was assured that the same would be activated very soon. Thereafter the complainant contacted at the call centre of the OPs and after repeated requests, he was informed that due to non-payment of dues by his brother, his mobile connection was deactivated. The complainant wrote email dated 28.4.2015 to the appellate authority of the OPs regarding the illegal disconnection of his mobile connection and in reply the OPs vide email dated 29.4.2015 intimated him that his case had been sent to the concerned team.  However, vide email dated 30.4.2015, the appellate authority regretted to resume services of the mobile connection of the complainant for absence of clearance of current outstanding dues of Rs.4,497.26 reflected on Airtel mobile No.8427157957.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has instituted the present complaint.

2.         In their joint written reply, OPs have not disputed that the complainant had taken mobile connection bearing No.8146999991 from them. It has been stated that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.4,646.92 against Mr. Sunil Sareen, resident of H.No.24-B, Vijay Nagar, Gali No.2, Batala Road, Amritsar and the complainant, Mr. Anil Sareen has also submitted the same address with the same parentage. It has been pleaded that the fraud management system had automatically debarred the calls of the complainant on 12.5.2015 as there was outstanding (amount?) against mobile No.8427157957 belonging to Mr. Sunil Sareen. It has been contended that the connection has been restored after getting orders from this Forum.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been contended that the OPs have finally activated the mobile connection on 18.6.2015 despite the orders of this Forum on 10.6.2015, but, thereafter the complainant noticed that the credit limit has been reduced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.500/- and various packages such as internet usage, internet calling and message package have been withdrawn.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have perused the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by both sides and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         It is the admitted case of the OPs that the complainant had subscribed to the mobile connection bearing No.8146999991 from them and he has been availing the services for the past four years. The plea of the complainant that he has been regularly making the payment against bills/invoices generated by the OPs has not been denied by the OPs in their written reply.  It is also admitted that on 24.4.2015 the mobile connection No.8146999991 of the complainant was deactivated/stopped by the OPs.  On enquiry by the complainant from the call centre of the OPs, he was informed that due to non-payment of the dues by his brother, his mobile connection was got deactivated. It has been contended on behalf of the OPs that there is an outstanding amount of Rs.4,646.92 in respect of mobile No.8427157957 belonging to Mr. Sunil Sareen, resident of H.No.24-B, Vijay Nagar, Gali No.2, Batala Road, Amritsar and the complainant, Mr. Anil Sareen has also submitted the same address with the same parentage of Mr. Sunil Sareen and the fraud management system has automatically debarred the calls of the complainant on 12.5.2015 against that outstanding amount.
7.         It is worth mentioning that alongwith the main complaint, an application for interim relief was also filed by the complainant.  After obtaining the written reply of the OPs, that application was allowed vide order dated 10.6.2015 passed by this Forum.  The OPs were directed to activate the services to the mobile connection No.8146999991 of the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint with the condition that the complainant shall be regularly making the payment of the outstanding charges in respect of his mobile connection No.8146999991 to the OPs.
8.         As per the case of the complainant in his rejoinder, the OPs activated his mobile connection only on 18.6.2015 after he made repeated efforts for this purpose According to the complainant, prior to the deactivation of the said connection, the credit limit on his mobile connection was Rs.5,000/- and various packages such as internet usage, internet calling, message package were activated, but, after reactivation the credit limit has been abruptly reduced to Rs.500/- and all the packages which were earlier available were withdrawn. 
9.         In M/s Mahalakshmi Legal & Tax Consultancy Services Vs. The Assistant General Manager (OSD), Telecom & Anr., 1996 (1) CivCC 85 (Andhra Pradesh High Court), it was held that Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and Indian Telegraph Rules do not empower the telegraph authorities to disconnect the telephone of one person for the fault of another.  In that case the default was committed by the wife and the telegraph authorities deactivated the telephone of the firm in which husband was a partner and this action of the telegraph authorities was held to be improper. Further in Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited Vs. M/s Chem-Expo (India) Ltd., 2010 (166) DLT 440 (Delhi), the telephone connection of the respondent was disconnected on account of the default committed by the relative of the subscriber.  It was held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court that the service provider cannot disconnect respondent’s telephone on account of default committed by the relative of the consumer. It was held that there is nothing in the rule which may permit disconnection of telephone of a subscriber on account of default committed by either close relative or person having close nexus with the subscriber.
10.         We may mention that the learned counsel for the OPs has not been able to cite any ruling to the contrary.  Accordingly, the disconnection of telephone No.8146999991 of the complainant for default committed by his brother,
    Mr. Sunil Sareen is clearly illegal in view of the law laid down in the above cited rulings of Hon’ble High Courts of Andhra Pradesh and Delhi.  The justification put forward by the OPs that the fraud management system had automatically debarred the calls of the complainant on 12.5.2015 because Mr. Sunil Sareen, who had submitted the same address as that of the complainant, had to make payment of an amount of Rs.4,646.92 against mobile connection No.8427157957 has no merit.  We are of the opinion that the acts of the OPs in firstly disconnecting the mobile No.8146999991 of the complainant on 12.5.2015 without any fault on his part amounts to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Furthermore, when this Forum passed an order on 10.6.2015 in the presence of both the counsels whereby the OPs were directed to activate the services to mobile connection bearing No.8146999991 of the complainant, the said mobile connection ought to have been activated on that very day, but, despite the requests made by the complainant, the same was activated only on 18.6.2015. Further, the act of the OPs in withdrawing the already existing packages and reducing the credit limit on the mobile connection of the complainant also points out to deficiency in service on their part. We feel that the actions of the OPs have caused immense inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to the complainant.  The OPs indulged in unfair trade practice and were also deficient in services.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed. The OPs are directed :-

(i)     To restore the credit limit of mobile connection No.8146999991 of the complainant alongwith various other packages, which were existing prior to 12.5.2015.

(ii)    To pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing harassment, mental tension and agony to the complainant.

(iii)   To pay litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant.

12.         This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
14/10/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President