Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/469/2014

Vikrant Prabhakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	469 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	09.09.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	22.06.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Vikrant Prabhakar, Registered communication address at Room No.300, Parivar Kalyan Bhawan, 34-A, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Mohali – 55 Punjab

 

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU   PRESIDING MEMBER

          MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Complainant in person.

Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel for the Opposite Party

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant being subscriber of Mobile Connection No.9814016211 of Opposite Party Company was paying the usage bills regularly.  As such, the payment for bill dated 3.11.2012 was made through cheque No.204097 on 16.11.2012 and the same was debited from the account on 21.11.2012 (Ann.1), but the payment was not updated and was shown as pending in the next bill.  It is averred that despite providing all details of payment, the Nodal Office of Airtel was not able to trace the payment in their record.  Ultimately, the official of Opposite Party collected the copy of bank statement of Nov., 2012 from the complainant, but despite that the payment was not updated and the complainant kept on getting threatening calls, mails & sms that the services will be discontinued, if he failed to make the payment of pending bill, which had already been paid. Finally, when the matter was brought to the notice of appellate authority of Airtel, the payment was traced by the company and it was updated in the account of the complainant in June, 2013 (Ann.2), but surprisingly, Rs.400/- has been shown as pending payment as late payment fine levied, to which complainant agitated, but still the OPs failed to reverse the Late Payment Charges and started giving calls to the complainant for discontinuing the service if he failed to pay the pending bill.  Further, it is submitted that the complainant did not receive the hardcopy of bill for Feb. despite making the payment. Moreover, the Opposite Party forwarded the bill of the complainant to some unknown person thereby disclosing the details of the complainant, which amounts to breach of confidentiality.  It is also pleaded that though the complainant had registered his number with National Do Not Disturb (DND) registry, but still he is receiving unsolicited commercial communications (UCC).  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the above acts of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed the reply and admitted that the complainant is subscriber of mobile connections provided by it, as alleged.  It is submitted that any payment made through cheque requires that details of connection are provided so that the cheque can be realized and updated against the number for which it is submitted.  It is also submitted that the complainant was informed that he should submit his statement of accounts but he failed to provide the details. The making of any threatening calls, as alleged, have been denied by the Opposite Party.  It is stated that in the absence of details of payment, it could not be verified. However, the number of the complainant was not barred, but due to technical fault of details, the payment could not be updated in account of the complainant, as he had not provided the complete details against the cheque and when the details were provided by the customer, the same was updated.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Party led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the complainant, ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the record.

 

5]       The complainant has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite party on the ground that he is a bona-fide subscriber under post-paid mobile connection bearing No.9814016211 of the Opposite Party and that he has been regularly paying all his bills, as and when the same was demanded.  During the month of Nov., 2012, the payment against the bill dated 3^rd Nov., 2012 was made through a cheque dated 16.11.2012, which was debited from the account of the complainant on 21^st Nov., 2012.  However, the Opposite Party kept the case of the complainant as a Late Payment Case and Rs.400/- was shown as pending amount even after the appellate office of the Opposite Party having finally traced the payment made by the complainant.  The complainant is aggrieved of the fact that after declaring the late payment against the complainant, Opposite Party kept on increasing/adding the late payment charges every month thereafter.  Finally, when the complaint was filed in Aug., 2014, an amount of nearly Rs.1000/- was outstanding, as late payment charges and the complainant claims that he was being threatened over the phone with disconnection of his mobile service in case he did not make good the payment.  The complainant has also alleged that on earlier occasion he had successfully subscribed for “Do Not Disturb” facility.  But however, he had again started getting calls as well as SMS messages from different commercial entities, which was the cause of disturbance to him.

 

6]       The complainant had raised the matter with the OPs through his first e-mail communication dated 21^st Dec., 2012 regarding the payment updation in the account of the complainant to which the OPs responded by claiming that the infeasibility to trace the payment made vide cheque No.204097, the matter was pending for resolution.  Thereafter, the complainant kept on asking the Opposite Party to resolve the matter on each such occasions, when an additional amount of late payment charges were being demanded through the bills raised for subsequent months.  There are nearly 60/70 pages of communication shared by the complainant with the Opposite Party on this issue alone.  However, some other additional matters were also raised by the complainant with regard to the withdrawal of “Do Not Disturb” facility and receipt of unsolicited commercial communication.  In all the replies to the e-mails, the Opposite Party on each occasion registered his grievance by issuing a fresh service request number, but the matter was not resolved even till the time of filing of the reply by the Opposite Party.

 

7]       The complainant has also objected to the non-delivery of the hard copy of the bill, whereas the Opposite Party in their reply to communication has claimed that the same was delivered at the complainant’s address by declaring that they are in the possession of POD Receipt at their end, which was signed by one Vikrant Prabhakar.  Though the complainant kept on raising the issue again and again and was agitated enough when the soft copy of the bill of the complainant was delivered to an un-known e-mail address, giving rise to a suspicion in the mind of the complainant that his personal details as mentioned in the bill and also the details of the phone calls have gone into the hands of an un-known person, which amounts to breach of his privacy, which the Opposite Party should have maintained.

 

8]       While going through the documents and the details of the payment receipt of the Opposite Party vide Ann.R-1, it is abundantly clear that the bill in question for the month of Nov., 2012 is shown to have not been paid, but the documents placed on record by the complainant clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.788/- was debited on 21.11.2012, as per the Bank Statement of Axis Bank, which was made against the bill dated 3.11.2012 and the due date of its payment was 21.11.2012.  This fact conclusively proves that the complainant had paid the bill amount of Rs.788/- by due date of payment and was not liable to pay any late payment charges, as levied by the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is certainly wrong by claiming Rs.100/- in the bill dated 3.12.2012.  Also that, the bill dated 3.12.2012 showed a previous balance of Rs.788/- whereas the same was found to have been paid on 21.11.2012 itself, as per the complainant’s bank statement. The complainant having raised this issue repeatedly was certainly aggrieved of the non-settlement of his account and also that Rs.100/- was being added each month as late payment charges even though the complainant was not at all liable to pay the same, as he had already made all his payments on or before the due dates.  The claim of late payment charges by the Opposite Party even though when it was not entitled certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part.  The Opposite Party having kept his matter alive for nearly 1½ years and having raised the amount to Rs.1400/-, when the complainant filed this complaint, has certainly aggravated the harassment of the complainant, which deserves to be dealt with.  Interestingly, the Opposite Party in order to cover-up the matter, have adjusted to Rs.918/- received in excess by it in the month of Jan., 2015 against the outstanding dues and having adjusted another Rs.378/- has claimed that the matter has been resolved, whereas as per Ann.R-1, the complainant was being demanded Rs.212/- even after such settlement of his grievance, which amounts to unfair trade practice on its part. 

 

9]       The other issue with regard to the “Do Not Disturb” facility, the Opposite Party have repeatedly demanded the details of such unsolicited calls or messages while the complainant was still receiving the same again & again.  The Opposite Party has not explained as to what was the impediment in again activating the “Do Not Disturb” facility on the phone of the complainant, while asking him about the details of the phone calls & messages received by him.  Therefore, by not activating the “Do Not Disturb” facility immediately on the phone of the complainant, the Opposite Party has not only aggravated the harassment of the complainant, but has also acted against TRAI guidelines. This act of the Opposite Party also amounts to deficiency in service on its part.   

 

10]      The matter with regard to the dispatch of the soft copy of the bill of the complainant to an un-known e-mail ID is concerned, we are of the view that though there is a communication on record vide which the complainant has raised this matter with the Opposite Party, but at the same time, the complainant has not come forward to substantiate that in what manner the breach of his privacy has adversely affected him or his family.  On the other part, the Opposite Party should have apologized at the very first instance for its mistake and should have also sent a communication to the same address requesting the deletion of the contents delivered due to its inadvertence.  No such action has been taken by the Opposite Party, which is certainly a cause of concern for the complainant.  Though the complainant has claimed during the course of arguments that for such an action, the Opposite Party is liable to be penalized to the tune of Rs.2.00 lacs, as per the Information & Technology Act, for the breach of his privacy.  Though the act of the Opposite Party in the given situation certainly amounts to deficiency in service on its part, but at the same time we are not inclined to award such an exorbitant penalty as the complainant has not substantiated the quantum of loss that he might have suffered due to such breach of his privacy.    

 

11]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is are found deficient in rendering proper service, as well as indulgence into unfair trade practice, towards the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

1. To waive off entire late payment charges raised till date.

 

2. To adjust an amount of Rs.918/- against future bill.

 

 

3. To immediately reactivate “Do Not Disturb” facility on the mobile connection of the complainant.

 

4. To make necessary changes in their records so that no future soft-copy of bill of the complainant is delivered to an un-known entity.

 

 

5. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

        The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the Party free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

22.06.2015         

                                                                            

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

                                                                                                                     

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.469 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 22nd day of June, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Party.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	Presiding Member