Haryana

Karnal

CC/139/2020

Yashvir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 139 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.03.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:01.06.2023

 

Yashvir son fo Shri Santosh Kumar, resident of VPO Muradgarh, tehsil Indri, District Karnal, Haryana.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, (Regional Head Office), Ground floor. G.T. Road, Dayal Singh Colony, Karnal, Haryana, through its Manager.

 

2.     Bharti Airtel Head Office, Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector 39, Tower-A, 4^th floor, Gurugram, Haryana, through its Manager.

                                                              …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

Argued by: None for the complainant

                   Shri Rahul Bali, counsel for the opposite parties.

 

                    (Vineet kaushik, member)

ORDER:   

                

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant is a consumer of OPs and having three mobile connections bearing no.9728899987, 8607765307, 9991171831. The complainant and his family members are using these mobile connections for last more than five years and are regularly paying its service charges to the OP. For the last two years, the OPs are not providing their network services in the village of complainant due to said reason, complainant and his family is suffering problems as they are entitled to get from OPs, due to said reason they are unable to do their important work through mobile services and suffering a lot. Complainant moved applications with the OPs so many times through email, customer care service centre but OPs failed to solve his problems upto date. Lastly on 29.02.2020 complainant has received an email from OPs in which they have mentioned that any time for solving problem, only assurance was given to the complainant. The complainant has failed to get solved his problems from OP at his own level. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the complaint is barred by the limitation imposed b Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It is further pleaded that the complainant is the subscriber of mobile connections bearing no.9728899987, 8607765307, 9991171831 and has  been using the same for the last many years. However, no such concern has been raised by the complainant in the last more than 5 years since he has been using the connection. The plea of the complainant that for the last 2 years the mobile network is not being provided by the OPs is totally incorrect as the bare perusal of the usage of the complainant would clearly shows that he had been getting the network coverage and as such the present complaint having been filed is without any basis. Further, while considering the request of the complainant and in order to provide better services, the OP is planning the feasibility of installation of new site in village Muradgarh i.e. the place of resident of the complainant. As such as and when all the clearance were obtained, the OP would try to get the new site installed at the abovesaid site. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of email dated 29.02.2020 Ex.C1 and closed the evidence on 17.08.2021 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, on 07.10.2022 learned counsel for the OPs has suffered a statement to the effect that the written version filed by the OPs be read as their evidence.

6.             None has put into appearance on behalf of complainant, the position remained the same on the last three adjourned dates.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

8.             As per version of the complainant, for the last two years, the OPs are not providing their network services in the village of complainant due to said reason, he made many complaints to the OPs but OPs failed to solve his problems.

9.             As per version of the OPs, the allegations of complainant  is totally incorrect as the bare perusal of the usage of the complainant would clearly shows that he had been getting the network coverage. Further, while considering the request of the complainant and in order to provide better services, the OPs are planning the feasibility of installation of new site in the village of complainant. As such as and when all the clearance were obtained, the OP would try to get the new site installed at the abovesaid site.

10.           The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No other villager has made any complaint with regard to network services in the village of complainant. Complainant is not pursued his case for the last three adjourned dates, it appears that the grievances of the complainant has been sought out by the OPs.

10.           Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance

Dated: 01.06.2023.                                                                   

                                                                 President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                        Member