Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/662/2016

Aman Saggi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

02 May 2017

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	662 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	18.8.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	2.5.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Aman Saggi, H. No.575, Sector 16D, Chandigarh.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

Bharti Airtel Limited through its Manager Plot No.21 Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, U.T., Chandigarh 160101.  

 

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  

 

S.S. Panesar                      PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR                  MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA          MEMBER

 

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Pawan Kumar, authorized       representative of the       complainant.
For OP	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took postpaid mobile connection of OP in 2015. It is pleaded that till Nov. 2015 the complainant made payment of the bill regularly.  In April 2016 the said connection started giving problem which the complainant informed to the OP through its customer care but the OP failed to rectified the connection but instead continued to raise bill for the unused period. It is alleged that the OP failed to restore the connection and on 16.7.2016 sent outstanding bill of Rs.3841/- and threatened the complainant of legal consequences in case of failure of payment of bill. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

 

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.          Opposite Party in its reply stated that the answering OP is empowered to disconnect services on the mobile numbers, as allotted to complainant, under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. It is pleaded that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5354 of 2002 titled Surjit Singh Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. has even gone to the extent that telephone lines in the name of the person can be disconnected for non payment of the dues in connection with the line in the name of his dependent relatives. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Party have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite  Party.

5.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.          We have heard the authorized representative of the complainant, learned counsel for the OP and have perused the record carefully.

 

7.          The main grievance of the complainant is that he has been charged illegally for his mobile phone connection for the period for which his mobile connection services were down. On perusal of the  documents, placed on record by the complainant from Annexure C-1 to C-6, we find that the complainant has agitated many a times regarding raising of the bills by the OP company for the unused period for which the mobile connection was down.

 

8.      The OP has been insisting for the payment of the balance bill of Rs.3,841/- without giving satisfactory reply. The OP has failed to submit the details regarding usages of mobile data connection during the said period. Hence, we are of the concerted view that the amount of Rs.3,841/- has been wrongly billed in favour of the complainant.  As such there is deficiency on the part of the OP and the complaint has merit.    

 

9.          In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite  Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite  party is directed  to:-

 

[a]  To waive off the bill amount of the complainant of Rs.3,841/-.

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.1000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.1000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

10.        The above said order be complied with by the Opposite  Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

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

 

Announced

2.5.2017           

 (P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

SD/-

(S.S. Panesar)

PRESIDENT

 

SD/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

SD/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER