Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/752/2014

Mr. Navjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/752/2014
Date of Institution	:	17/11/2014
Date of Decision	:	15/06/2015

 

 

Mr. Navjeet Singh s/o Sh. Sawinder Singh r/o H.No.50, Sandhu Avenue, Near Sareen Hospital, Batala Road, Amritsar, Punjab.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

……Opposite Party

 

 

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

                                               

                                               

                       

For complainant	:	Complainant in person
For OP	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

                       

                 

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Navjeet Singh, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited, Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he had been availing mobile telephone services on mobile connection No.98150-33711, provided to him by the OP, since long.  It has been contended that the complainant had been continuously getting wrong internet data usage charges in his bill from previous three months.  It has been averred that the OP was deliberately committing the mistake to harass the complainant and the problem was not addressed despite several complaints by him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In its written reply, OP has pleaded that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.  It has been averred that the charges were levied as per the usage and the scheme provided to the complainant.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OP and reiterated his own. It has been averred that mobile No. in question was registered in the name of complainant’s brother, Mr. Baljinder Singh but from very long time complainant has been using the same. 
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the OP and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person.
6.         At the outset, we find that the complainant has failed to prove that he is a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  The copy of the enrollment form at Annexure R-1 coupled with the affidavit of the OP shows that the said mobile No.98150-33711 exists in the name of Mr. Baljinder Singh, PWC Private Ltd. s/o Mukhtar Singh, House No.6, Gali Saran Wali Bordi Chowk, Near Joginder Singh Wansa Wale, Taran Tarn, Punjab.  The complainant has not produced any such evidence which could show that he got transferred the above said mobile connection in his name from the OP.  There is no such affidavit of Mr. Baljinder Singh to this effect that he originally hired the services of the OP, but, later on gave the mobile connection No.98150-33711 in favour of the complainant. No doubt, in his rebuttal evidence, the complainant has produced a copy of the pay slip showing that he made the payment of a bill in respect of the mobile connection in question to the OP, but, we feel that since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP, and the complainant  has not produced any documentary evidence to this effect that he is legally authorized to use mobile No.98150-33711, therefore, the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable on this score alone. 
7.         Even if the complainant is assumed to be a consumer, nevertheless, the complainant has failed to establish his allegations. The allegations in the complaint are quite vague. It has simply been mentioned in the complaint that the complainant is continuously getting wrong internet data usage charges in his bill from previous three months and the company is deliberately committing this mistake to harass him.  There are no details of the wrong internet data usage charges in the bills of the last three months in the complaint. In his affidavit, the complainant has mentioned the wrong details as under :-

Bill Period	Charges	Adjustment
23/5/2014 to 22/6/2014	Rs.708.65	Rs.561/-
23/7/2014 to 22/8/2014	Rs.1025.28	Rs.674/-
23/8/2014 to 22/9/2014	Rs.520.66	Rs.260/-
23/9/2014 to 22/10/2014	Rs.425.39	Rs.182/-

 

The complainant also sent an email message dated 29.11.2014 to the OPs that he did not use any type of internet service on mobile No.98150-33711 and he was wrongly charged for internet data usage.  However, the OP has produced the complete details at Annexure R-2 to R-4 giving the itemized statement showing the date, time, number, duration/volume, pulse, and the amount of internet usage on Airtel mobile No.98150-33711. There is no reason on record to doubt the genuineness of the details furnished by the OP which are based on a computerized data.  In the absence of any cogent evidence, we are unable to accept this contention that no usage of internet service was made by any person from Airtel mobile No.98150-33711.

8.         For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
15/06/2015	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	Member	President