Haryana

Karnal

CC/141/2019

Sukhdev Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Vikas Yadav

23 Oct 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                          Complaint No. 141 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt. 07.03.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 23.10.2019

 

Sukhdeva Sharma son of Shri Ram Pal resident of VPO. Baragaon Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                         …….Complainant

                                        Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. plot no.41 & 42 Industrial Park, Sector-2, Growth Centre, Saha District Ambala Haryana, India through its Sales Manager.

2. Pardeep Dalal, Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd., COCO Store, Kunjpura Road, Karnal.

                                                                        …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 Present:  Shri Vikas Yadav Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Rahul Bali Advocate for opposite party no.1

                   OP no.2 exparte.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant is using the postpaid mobile no.98969-13333 of Airtel Company and was using the same from last three years. The complainant used the said number occasionally. The said mobile was disconnected and then complainant paid the bill amount with OP no.2 and said number was again came in service. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.2 to convert the said number from postpaid to prepaid but OP no.2 refused to do the same when ask about the reason then OP no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, complainant moved complaints through e-mail to higher authorities then OP no.2 openly challenged that “Agar tum me dam he to number chalu karva ke dikha or agar tune number chalu karwa diya to me apni nokri chor dunga ya fir tera number kisi or ken am transfer karke bach dunga or yah bhi kaha ke aaj ke bad tujhe es number ke bare me jankari nahi de jayagi.”

Since February, 2019 the said number is not in service as the OP no.2 refused to receive the bill and also refused to give any information regarding the said number and ask that if complainant wants to re-activate the number then complainant should pay Rs.7000/- as bribe. Thereafter, complainant received email through higher authorities that complainant visited to the OP no.2 and pay the bill amount then number will be activated. Thereafter, complainant again visited to the OP no.2 and requested to receive the bill and activate the said number but OP no.2 refused to receive the bill and also refused to activate the said number and misbehaved. Due to this act of the OPs complainant suffered huge loss and also having mentally harassment. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and complaint is a frivolous and vexatious exercise and fit to be dismissed.  On merits, it is pleaded that the number was disconnected due to two reasons, one of which was non-payment of dues and the second is that the number belonging to the complainant is a premium number. The premium number require a certain amount of consideration to be paid against the number. However, the complainant is unwilling to pay the premium amount to the OP-despite using the number for the last 3 years as stated in the complaint, the complainant is unwilling to pay the charges for activating a premium number against his account. Further, the complainant has always requested for a waiver against bill payment from the OP. As a gesture of goodwill the OP no.1 provided a bill waiver to the complainant on 2 occasions. However, the complainant has used this gesture of goodwill of the company to request for further waiver. The same has caused immense loss to the company. The OP has posted a waiver on the account of the complainant, however, he is still insisting on more waivers. The first waiver on 20^th October 2018 when he took a bill waiver from the store of the OP in Karnal and the second waiver was requested in February, 2019 for waiver of the outstanding bills. However, the complainant has again refused to pay bills or cost of the vanity number. As per the policy of the company to avoid any further losses to the company, the complainant was requested to clear all outstanding dues against his account as well as the vanity charges that was applicable to the above mentioned premium number which he required free of costs. The complainant has an outstanding due against his present account and is refusing to resolve the same. Without resolution of all the outstanding dues against the complainant, it would be detrimental for the OP no.1 to convert the number of the complainant from postpaid to prepay. It is further pleaded that as a gesture of goodwill already posted 2 waivers in the account of the complainant. The complainant is now simply using his influence into strong arming the OP no.1 to waive off all charges. The complainant is only intent on destroying the goodwill of the OP no.1 in the market. It is denied that any bribe was requested from the complainant. Rs.2500/- is the charge for the vanity number that was issued to the complainant that he has not paid till date and yet is asking for waiver of his bill on multiple occasions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 29.04.2019.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence on 08.08.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Neha Nisal Assistant Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2019.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is using the postpaid mobile no.98969-13333 of Airtel Company and was using the same from last three years. The complainant used the said number occasionally. The said mobile was disconnected and then complainant paid the bill amount with OP no.2 and said number was again came in service. Thereafter, complainant approached the OP no.2 to convert the said number from postpaid to prepaid but OP no.2 refused to do the same when ask about the reason then OP no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply. Thereafter, complainant moved complaints through e-mail to higher authorities but to no effect. Since February, 2019 the said number is not in service as the OP no.2 refused to receive the bill and also refused to give any information regarding the said number and ask that if complainant wants to re-activate the number then complainant should pay Rs.7000/- as bribe. Thereafter, complainant received email through higher authorities that complainant visited to the OP no.2 and pay the bill amount then number will be activated. Thereafter, complainant again visited to the OP no.2 and requested to receive the bill and activate the said number but OP no.2 refused to receive the bill and also refused to activate the said number and misbehaved.

8.             The case of the OP no.1 is that the number was disconnected due to two reasons, one of which was non-payment of dues and the second is that the number belonging to the complainant is a premium number. The premium number require a certain amount of consideration to be paid against the number. However, the complainant is unwilling to pay the premium amount to the OP-despite using the number for the last 3 years as stated in the complaint, the complainant is unwilling to pay the charges for activating a premium number against his account. Further, the complainant has always requested for a waiver against bill payment from the OP. As a gesture of goodwill the OP no.1 provided a bill waiver to the complainant on 2 occasions. However, the complainant has used this gesture of goodwill of the company to request for further waiver. The same has caused immense loss to the company. The OP has posted a waiver on the account of the complainant, however, he is still insisting on more waivers. The first waiver on 20^th October 2018 when he took a bill waiver from the store of the OP in Karnal and the second waiver was requested in February, 2019 for waiver of the outstanding bills. However, the complainant has again refused to pay bills or cost of the vanity number. As per the policy of the company to avoid any further losses to the company, the complainant was requested to clear all outstanding dues against his account as well as the vanity charges that was applicable to the above mentioned premium number which he required free of costs. The complainant has an outstanding due against his present account and is refusing to resolve the same. Without resolution of all the outstanding dues against the complainant, it would be detrimental for the OP no.1 to convert the number of the complainant from postpaid to prepay. As a gesture of goodwill already posted 2 waivers in the account of the complainant. The complainant is now simply using his influence into strong arming the OP no.1 to waive off all charges. The complainant is only intent on destroying the goodwill of the OP no.1 in the market. It is denied that any bribe was requested from the complainant. Rs.2500/- is the charge for the vanity number that was issued to the complainant that he has not paid till date and yet is asking for waiver of his bill on multiple occasions.

9.             Admittedly, the complainant using the postpaid mobile number of the OPs and using the same from the last three years. As per the complainant he approached the OP no.2 to convert the said number from postpaid to prepaid but OP no.2 failed to do the same and misbehaved the complainant. To rebut the said version of the complainant OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence the said plea of the OP no.2 is unrebutted and unchallenged and there is no reason to disbelieve the same.

10.            The learned counsel of the OP no.1 argued that the mobile connection of the complainant was disconnected due to two reasons, one of which was non-payment of the dues and second was that number belonging to the complainant is a premium number and premium number is required to certain amount of consideration to be paid against the number. The complainant is unwilling to pay the charges for activating the  premium number against his account despite using the number from last 3 years. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is ready to deposit the unpaid/remaining amount, if any, with regard to the mobile number in question. The complainant is ready to clear the remaining bills, if any. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to restore his mobile number.

11.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to restore the connection of the complainant after paying all the remaining bills and OP no.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.  This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:23.10.2019

                                                                    President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                    (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                        Member