DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.30 of 2016

                                                Date of institution:  13.01.2016                                                 Date of decision   :  10.04.2017

Niraj Malik son of Shri K.B. Malik resident of House No.1777, Phase-V, SAS Nagar.

……..Complainant

                                        Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited through its Managing Director/Incharge, Plot No.C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Mohali.

                                                      ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of

the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President                          Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri P.K. Kukreja, counsel for the complainant.

                OP ex-parte.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Niraj Malik has filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The complainant got installed on his name one broadband connection fixed line number 0172-4667034 at his house. The complainant was using the connection for domestic use and opted for monthly plan of Rs.849/- and was utilizing the plan smoothly for a long time. Suddenly on 25.05.2015 the complainant came to know from the bill that the monthly charges have been revised by the OP at its own and the OP had claimed Rs.1199/- towards the monthly plan charges.  The complainant immediately lodged protest with the OP vide e-mail dated 25.05.2015. Amit Kumar of the OP told the complainant that the plan has been changed on the request of the complainant. It was further revealed to the complainant that one Mr. Shivam Sharma, an employee of the OP on 27.03.2015 at 11.17 a.m. placed the request after receiving a consent call from the complainant. However, the complainant has never lodged any such consent call with the OP. The complainant vide e-mail dated 25.05.2015 asked the OP to provide recording of the said request call. The OP refused to provide telephonic conversation vide e-mail dated 27.05.2015. The complainant again demanded telephonic conversation vide e-mail dated 04.06.2015 and complaint No.5636020 was registered and the OP assured to provide the conversation by 09.06.2015. But till date the OP had not provided the conversation to the complainant. Till date neither the OP has changed the monthly plan to Rs.849/- nor is providing recording. The OP is excessively charging Rs.250/- per month from the complainant. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund him Rs.250/- with subsequent taxes received in excess with interest @ 18% per annum from May, 2015 till actual refund; to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.1.50 lakhs for mental agony, physical discomfort and harassment etc. and Rs.22,000/- as legal expenses.

3.             Notice sent to the OP was duly served on it but none appeared for it despite repeated calling. Accordingly, the OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 11.07.2016.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; copies of bills Ex.C-1 to C-6 and E-mails Ex.C-7 to C-10.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the OP has failed to provided the telephonic conversation vide which the complainant had requested for the change of plan. The complainant has never requested the OP for change of plan. Learned counsel has thus argued that the OP on its own changed the plan of the complainant which is an act of deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves compensation.

6.             We have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written as well as oral arguments of the complainant.  Perusal of Ex.C-4 i.e. bill dated 18.03.2015 shows that the monthly charges of the broadband connection of the complainant was to the tune of Rs.849/-.  However, the OP in the bill dated 18.05.2015 Ex.C-5 has charged an amount of Rs.1199/- towards monthly charges from the complainant. The complainant vide E-mail dated 25.05.2015 Ex.C-7 asked  to provide the recording of the said telephonic consent which the OP have received from the complainant for change of his plan. The OP vide e-mail dated 27.05.2015 Ex.C-8 while regretting the inconvenience caused to the complainant stated that it is unable to share the voice recording to the consumer. The OP has chosen not to appear in this Forum despite service of notice upon it. Non appearance of the OP in this Forum despite receipt of notice amounts to admission of the averments of the complainant.  Thus, we hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

7.             Accordingly, we allow the present complaint with the direction to the OP to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant from May, 2015 till change of the monthly plan of the complainant to Rs.849/-. The OP should also pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The OP is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of decision till actual payment.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.04.2017 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 10.04.2017    

                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)           

President

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Member

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member