Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/451/2016

Yash Pal Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Inderdeep Singh Adv.

01 Feb 2017

ORDER

01STRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	451 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	29.06.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	01.02.2017

 

 

 

 

Yashpal Gupta son of Sh.Randhir Kumar, SCO No.40-41, Level-III, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh 160017, R/o Kothi NO.1154, Sector 79, Mohali (Punjab) 160062

              …………..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1]   Bharti Airtel Limited, A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Registered Office at Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi 110 070

 

2]   Bharti Airtel Limited, A Company Incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, Circle Office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160 001

 

…………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

           

Argued By: Sh.Inderdeep Singh, Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant purchased Airtel 4G dongle as well as post paid connection No.7087079726 on 18.11.2015 from the OPs and made payment of Rs.8800/- in advance through Cheque No.077041, dated 18.11.2015, for uninterrupted services for 6 months for package of 15GB 4G data @Rs.1299/- plus service tax per month (Ann.C-1 & C-2).  It is averred that the service of said connection was started from 23.11.2015 and the first bill for the period beginning from 23.11.2015 to 10.12.2015 was generated by the OPs (Ann.C-3).  It is stated that since the beginning there were problem of poor connectivity and connection drop, which were brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, but they every time put excuses.  It is stated that though the complainant had made the payment in advance, still the officials of the OPs kept on making calls to the complainant for deposit of the amount and every time the complainant had to inform them about advance payment already made.  However, to the shock of complainant, the OPs disconnected the internet services of the complainant (who is a one of the Top Corporate Lawyer in India and in the Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh), while he was on his professional tour to Delhi and due to this act of the OPs, he could not make the presentation to his client which was embarrassing. When the customer care of the OPs were contacted, they stated that the connection has been barred due to non-payment of the overdue bill, though the payment was already made in advance.  It is asserted that after certain days, when the complainant checked the connection, it was found functional for some days and then stopped.  It is also asserted that during the billing period from 11.1.2016 to 10.2.2016, 11.2.2016 to 10.3.2016, 11.3.2016 to 10.4.2016, 11.4.2016 to 10.5.2016, 11.5.2016 to 10.6.2016 the services to the connection were again suspended for considerably long period and restored only for after 2-3 days in each billing month (Ann.C-4 to C-8).  It is further asserted that the bills sent by the OPs through e-mail are arbitrary, which have been disputed by the complainant and also represented the Opposite Parties, but still they arbitrarily framed bills and showing the due amount of Rs.4398.7 (Ann.C-18 colly.).  It is pleaded that the OPs did not consider the initial payment of Rs.8800/- made by the complainant and keep on forwarding false claim bills even for the period during which the services were remained suspended/disconnected without any information to the complainant and  wrong adjustment made at their own etc.  Therefore, the present complaint has been filed for refund of Rs.8800/- along with compensation, cost on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 filed reply and while admitting the providing of connection No.7087079726 to the complainant, have stated that the complainant may be asked to strictly prove the payment of Rs.8800/- against the said connection.  It is stated that as per records, an amount of Rs.3640.10 is outstanding against the complainant and as per record, the complainant has been issued ten bills, out of which only two payments of Rs.1600/- in Feb., 2016 and Rs.710/- in March, 2016 have been made by the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant himself is responsible for not making the payment and the statement of account along with screen shot with respect to the customer account is attached as Ann.R-A. It is further stated that the rules entitle the OPs to disconnect internet/telephone to a subscriber without any notice in case of default of payment.  It is submitted that the connection of the complainant was barred due to non-payment of the overdue bill. The Opposite Parties have stated that they are governed by the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 and not subject to The Consumer Protection Act. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable before this Forum.

 

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

5]       The contention raised by the OPs against jurisdiction before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, to decide this complaint, is untenable.

         The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Misc.Application No.204 of 2014 in R.P.No.1228 of 2013- Bharti Hexacom Ltd. Vs. Komal Prakash & Anr., has observed that after order of Apex Court in M.Krishnan case, Minister of Communication and I.T. by letter dated 24.1.2014 observed that powers of Telecom Authority are not vested in private telecom service providers and Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act is not applicable.   

         The Hon’ble National Commission in F.A.No.193 of 2014 – Vivek Bharadwaj Vs. Vodafone Essar East Ltd. & Ors., decided on 28.11.2016 has held that “Order in Bharti Hexacom Ltd. (Supra) passed by three Member’s Bench alleged to be larger Bench decided that powers of telegraph authority are now not vested in the private telecom service providers and also in BSNL; so, Section 7B of Telegraph Act have no application and Forums constituted under Consumer Protection Act are competent to entertain disputes between individual telecom consumers and telecom service providers.”  

         In view of the above judgment of Hon’ble National Commission, the present complaint before this Forum is maintainable. 

 

6]       The complainant has stated that he has paid Rs.8800/- vide Cheque No.077041, dated 18.11.2015 to the OPs, at the time of subscribing for connection No.7087079726 on 18.11.2015.  He has produced a copy of Bank Statement of IndusInd Bank (Page-28) to substantiate the payment of Rs.8800/- in favour of Bharti Airtel Ltd. through his Account No.150003121981. 

 

7]       The Opposite Parties without giving detail facts has merely asked for issue of directions to the complainant to prove the payment of Rs.8800/- against connection No.7087079726.  The Opposite Parties should have checked their record thoroughly and explain the complete details regarding adjustment of Rs.8800/- received from Yashpal Gupta, complainant on 30.11.2015 through IndusInd Bank. 

8]       The Opposite Parties have not come to the court with clean hands and concealed material facts before this Forum.  The facts on record explicitly proves the payment of Rs.8800/- to the OPs which have not been adjusted against outstanding bills by the OPs.  The Opposite Parties obviously on the face of record suffered from deficiency of service on their part. 

 

9]       Keeping in view the above facts, the present complaint is allowed with following directions to the Opposite Parties:-

1. The OPs shall adjust Rs.8800/- against the usage of the connection No.7087079726 and after adjusting the aforesaid amount, shall refund the balance amount to the complainant;
2. The OPs shall pay an amount of Rs.2500/- as compensatory cost on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant due to deficiency of service on their part;
3.  The OPs shall also pay litigation cost of Rs.1500/-.

 

         The OPs shall comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which they shall bear an additional cost of Rs.5000/-.

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

Announced

1^st February, 2017                           SD/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER