Haryana

Panchkula

CC/233A/2018

PREM CHAND SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

KESHAV GUPTA,ANNA BANSAL,STUTI BAMBA,NITIKA SHARMA.

24 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA

Prem Chand Sharma, aged 64 years, S/o Shri Dhani Ram Sharma, R/o House No.1518, Sector-21, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     Bharati Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, 2^nd Floor, Rajiv Gandhi, IT Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh-160017 through its Managing Director.

2.     Bharati Airtel Limited, through its Branch Office located at SCO-282, Sector-20, Panchkula-134117.

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.

For the Parties:   Ms. Stuti Bamba, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sanjib Pabbi, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant bought a premium Airtel Fixed line connection from the OPs by paying an amount of Rs. 50000/- in the year 2005 with the number of 0172-4055555. He has been using the safe custody feature on his Airtel connection provided by the OPs for the past 5 years. The complainant had to visit Thailand in the month of April, 2018 and requested the OPs to activate safe custody w.e.f. 07.04.2018 for the period ending 05.07.2018 and give confirmation of the same. He therefore paid the entire outstanding bill regarding his Airtel number for the period ending 06.04.2018, which amounted to Rs.943/- As the due payments were made  till 06.04.2018, the safe custody period was to start w.e.f. 07.04.2018.However, despite making payment, the OPs did not accede with the complainant’s request for activation of safe custody on his airtel connection and for the month of June on 21.06.2018 when the complainant was in Thailand, the OPs raised a bill of Rs.2,003.46. The initiation of safe custody period was made conditional on deposit of this amount despite the earlier request. The demand of the bill was resisted and protested by the complainant by e-mail dated 21.06.2018 and vide the same e-mail he further requested  for extension of safe  custody period for three months till 22.09.2018. Inspite of making the above request the OPs did not pay any attention and had a rather laid back approach in acceding with the request of the complainant. He time and again sent reminders to the OPs, but the OPs did not respond to the complainant’s request and raised monthly bills on the complainant’s connection and raised a bill of Rs.4,125/- on 14.8.2018. Further, on 25.09.2018 the OPs raised a hefty bill of amount of Rs.4550/- on the complainant and threatened to disconnect the connection if the bill is not paid timely, and finally disconnected the connection without any intimation to the complainant. The complainant an aged man of 65 years visited the head office of OP No.1 on several occasions kept on running from one employee to another and made a number of calls on the customer care just to resolve the issue but the OPs kept on delaying and neglecting the complainants request and on 08.10.2018 the Ops wrote an e-mail to the complainant asking him to pay an amount of Rs.4256/- if he wants his connection to be restored. Further, on 08.10.2018 the complainant was left with no option but to make the payment to get his services resumed.He deposited the payment  under  protest  at the office of OP No.2 and OP confirmed  the payment and assured  the complainant  to activate his connection within  three working days but they again failed in their commitment. Due to the said act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practices on the part of OPs.Hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous and no cause of action. On merits, Ops No.1 & 2 stated that there is no record with the OPs regarding the request for safe custody of the mobile number of the complainant. He has also not attached any proof of written request or acknowledgement from the OPs regarding the safe custody of mobile numbers. The communication attached by the complainant fully proves that the requests of safe custody is not received/acknowledged by the OPs. Further, the connection was restored after completing all the formalities. It is submitted that the bill has been raised according to the plan of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for complainant has tendered the affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-10 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has tendered the Affidavit Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.             

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties andgone through the entire record minutely and carefully.

5.             The grievances of the complainant, in the present complaint, relates to the non-activation of the facility of safe custody pertaining to the broadband connection bearing No.0172-4055555 on account of which the complainant was compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 4,550/- for the purposes of restoration of the aforesaid broadband connection, which was disconnected by the OP on 25.09.2018. The case of the complainant is that the OP was requested by the complainant vide e-mail dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure C-1) to activate the facility of safe custody w.e.f. 07.04.2018 till 05.07.2018 during his stay in Thailand. The learned counsel contended that the OP did not provided the said facility of safe custody on his Airtel Connection despite his request made to it vide his e-mail  dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure C-1)  and contrary to it, a bill amounting to Rs.2043.46/- was raised from him. The learned counsel contended that all due payments till 06 April 2018 amounting to Rs.943/- had already been made by him to the OP. It is further  contended that the aforesaid demand as raised by the OP vide its mail dated 21.06.2018 through its email address

6.             The OP has denied the claim of the complainant stating that it is a frivolous complaint and that no cause of action has accrued to the complainant. On merits, the learned counsel stated that no written request was ever received by the Ops from the complainant for the safe custody of mobile number in question. The learned counsel vehemently contended that the complainant has not attached any proof of written request or acknowledgment from the Ops regarding safe custody of the mobile phone. The learned counsel asserted that the complainant should have made written request for availing the facility of safe custody on his mobile number.

7.             Admittedly, the complainant has been availing the broadband facility on his mobile number 0172-4055555 for the last several years.  Further, the provision of facility of safe custody by the Ops to its customers during their stay in abroad is also not disputed. In this regard, the averments as contained in Para No.3 of the complaint with regard to the extension of safe  custody for broadband connection on the website of the Ops is admitted by the OP as a matter of record. With regard to the extension of the safe custody to the complainant on his mobile number as also the outstanding amount towards the complainant, lot of correspondence in the shape of various e-mails between the complainant and the Op is available on the file.

                Firstly, the complainant requested the OP to keep his mobile number 0172-4055555 in safe custody w.e.f. 07.04.2018 till 05.07.2018 as is evident from (Annexure C-1) which is reproduced as under;

                As we are going to Phuket (Thailand) on 07.04.2018 and will return back to India at home on 05.07.2018

                So I request you sir to kindly keep my above mentioned phone along with internet connection in safe custody w.e.f. 07.04.2018 till 05.07.2018 and oblige.   

                On the same day at about 12:16 PM on the same subject the complainant informed the OPs that he had made the payment of  Rs.943/- through Paytm and thus requested to activate the safe custody on his mobile number. The said e-mail is also reproduced as under;

        As per telephonic conversation to activate safe custody first I have to pay Rs.943/- so I have paid it through Paytm so please activate safe custody of my broadband No. 0172-4055555 at the earliest and also confirm by telephone or message that safe custody activation done successfully. I am waiting for your confirmation.

                However, the OPs not acting on the request of the complainant raised a bill amounting to Rs.2003.46/- vide e-mail dated 21.06.2018 from their e-mail address (Annexure C-3).  In response to this demand, the complainant reminded the OPs that he had requested them for the safe custody after depositing the outstanding amount of Rs.943/-, but, the OPs without taking into consideration the payment made by the complainant of Rs.943/- continued to raise the demand vide e-mail dated 14.08.2018 amounting to Rs.4125/- , e-mail dated 25.09.2018 amounting to Rs.4550/- and another e-mail dated 08.10.2018 amounting to Rs. 4256/- and ultimately the telephone connection was disconnected on 25.09.2018. For the sake of convenience the correspondence between the parties as held vide various e-mails is tabulated as under;

8.             From the above it is crystal clear that the parties i.e. the complainant and the OPs were in constant touch with each other w.e.f. 07.04.2018 and thus the contention of the OPs that they did not receive any written request from the complainant with regard to the safe custody is completely unfounded, baseless and devoid of merits. It is not the case of the Ops that the request for the activation of the safe custody on the mobile number in question was to be forwarded to them in a specific format. We have no doubt of any kind in any manner with regard to the fact that the Ops were duly conveyed by the complainant vide his e-mail dated 07.04.2018 (Annexure C-1) followed by his e-mail request dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure C-3) for  providing the safe custody on his mobile number  from 07.04.2019 to 05.07.2018. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we may safely conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OPs while delivering services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

i)              The OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.4,256/- along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. filing of present complaint till realization. 

ii)              To pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

10.            The OPs shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 24.10.2019

Dr.SushmaGarg   Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal       

        Member             Member                             President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                        Satpal                               

President