To-day is fixed for admission hearing.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant files hazira.

Heard the Ld. Advocate. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto.

The case of the complainant is, in brief, that she is the customer of OP-Airtel Company and being allured by their advertisement and induced by their agent that their network is the fastest and widest in the country, she recharged with the special packs of high-speed internet, unlimited calls etc. But the service provided by the OPs proved contrary in reality. The petitioner lodged complaint with the customer care service of the OPs but her grievance remained unredressed.  Complainant’s inability to contact with others due to deficiency in service of OP-Company, caused her monetary loss in the business besides mental agony and hence is the case.

          Considered. A perusal reveals that following:-

1. Of the 02(two) OPs- which one is branch office and which one is the  Head- is contradictorily stated in para-2 vis-à-vis Para 23 of the complaint to the confusion of the Forum.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. (OPs) have so many Branches throughout India like one at Siliguri, but it is not stated in the petition why only Siliguri Branch is responsible for the alleged poor service,
3. Nor is it stated in the complaint how Siliguri Branch of Airtel and only this Branch is the source of the problems noted in Para-10.
4. In Para-9, the complaint, the complainant states that she was induced by an agent of the OPs to avail their services and the agent in spite of thus being an essential party, has not been made an OP to the case.
5. In Para 15 of the complaint, the complainant states that she lodged a written complaint dtd. 29.05.2019 to the customer care executive but there was no response.  But the Customer Care Executive in spite of thus being an essential party, has not been made an OP to the case.
6. In Para 19, no date of arising the cause of action has been mentioned by the complainant.  Hence it could not be ascertained whether the case has been filed within the period of limitation stipulated in section 24A of the C.P. Act.

Thus the complaint suffers from more than one inadequacy.  Inadequate complaint cannot be adjudicated perfectly and the instant case is, hence, not admitted.