DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C. No. 328 of 30-11-2018

Decided on : 30-03-2022

Gundeep Bansal, aged about 30 years S/o Sh. Manohar Lal Bansal, Advocate, R/o 158 Kamla Nehru Colony, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Limited (My Airtel App) Head Office : G-454, IC Tower, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, through its CMD

2. Bharti Airtel Limited, Retail Outlet-cum-Customer Care Centre, The Mall, Bathinda, through its Manager/Branch Head

3. Punjab National Bank, Branch Office, Bibiwala Road, Near Bibiwala Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager/Branch Head.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member

Present

For the complainant : Sh. Rakesh Mangla, Advocate

For opposite parties : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate, for OPs No. 1 & 2

Sh. Rohit Goyal, Advocate, for OP No. 3.

ORDER

Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President

1. The complainant Gundeep Bansal (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against Bharti Airtel Limited and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties)

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holding prepaid mobile connection of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 bearing No. 94177-77058 in his name since long and has regularly been availing the services of the opposite parties. The opposite parties issued/released the said connection in favour of the complainant after getting entire formalities completed i.e. after verifyng the identity, adress proof etc.

3. The complainant alleged that he is also having Saving Bank A/c No. 3467000102124864 with opposite party No. 3 and the complainant has also been availing facility of debit card against his said bank account. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 launched Online App i.e. 'My Airtel App' for their customers to get various services including online recharge.

4. It is alleged that on 1.09.2018, the complainant was in urgent need of recharge of his aforesaid mobile number, so he tried to get his said mobile number recharged by the use of aforesaid 'Online App' of the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for Rs.499/- by using his Debit Card. The complainant tried twice to get his aforesaid mobile number recharged, but both the attempts proved futile. After debit of Rs. 499/- on both the occasions, said amounts were credited in the account of the complainant. As such, complainant did not suffer any monetary loss. However, on making third attempt to get his mobile connection recharged for a sum of Rs. 499/- by the use of Online App and by the use of debit card, a sum of Rs.499/- was debited in account of the complainant, but no message regarding recharge nor any balance/data etc. was provided to the complainant on account of this recharge. The complainant inquired the matter through customer care No. 12118 of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 on 2.9.2018 and complainant was told that it shall take period of 10 days to settle the matter. Then, the complainant visited the office of opposite party No. 2 and again contacted customer care number of opposite parties No.1 & 2 on 13.9.2018, but to no effect, however, they assured that the matter in question is still in process. The complainant alleged that after his repeated visits and requests to the opposite party No. 2, ultimately, they provided a complaint No. 2464763 to complainant for future querry. Thereafter, complainant sent e-mails to opposite parties No.1 & 2 on 20.10.2018 and 27.10.2018, to which opposite parties No.1 & 2 replied that complainant should contact opposite party No. 3 to settle his grievance.

5. The complainant alleged that he started approaching his banker i.e. opposite party No. 3 to enquire about matter to which, the opposite party No.3 replied that an amount of Rs. 499/- has already been debited in the account of the complainant and that the same has already been transferred online in the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant alleged that due to above said act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, loss of reputation, for which complainant claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to reimburse the amount of Rs. 499/- and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.

7. Upon notice, the opposite parties put an appearance through their respective counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their joint written reply raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and does not hold any ground. That the complaint is bad on account of lack of jurisdiction. That the complaint is frivolous and vexatious exercise.

8. It has been pleaded that Hon'ble Supreme Court in "General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishnan and Another" (Civil Appeal no. 7687 of 2004) observed that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred, Section 7-13 of the Indian Telegraph Act talks of determination by arbitration of any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the telegraph Authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the special law overrides the general law.

9. On merits, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 reiterated their version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. The opposite party No. 3 in its separate written reply, raised preliminary legal objections that complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any relief against opposite party No. 3.

11. It has been pleaded that after receiving online intimation through Debit card of the complainant, the opposite party No. 3 deducted the amount from the account of complainant and sent the same to the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2. The opposite party No. 3 has not committed any fault and the complainant is not entitled to any relief against opposite party No. 3. The complainant wanted to misuse the process of law to get undue gain and benefit from opposite party No. 3. The complainant has himself admitted in para No. 5 of the complaint that he himself applied online to pay Rs.499/- to opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No. 3 transferred Rs. 499/- to the account of opposite parties No.1 & 2. When complainant visited opposite party No. 3, he was given full knowledge of the facts.

12. Further legal objections are that the complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure the goodwill and reputation of opposite party No. 3. Even otherwise the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. That the complainant is estopped from filling the present complaint by his own act, conduct commission, omission, negligence acquiescence. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3. That the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint against opposite party No. 3. That opposite party No. 3 is an Indian Multinational Bank and state owned corporation based in New Delhi. The bank has 80 million customers, 6937 branches and well reputed commercial bank. The opposite party No. 3 gives utmost care to customers and their grievances.

13. On merits, the opposite party No. 3 reiterated its version as pleaded in preliminary objections and detailed above. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

14. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 30-11-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of Transaction detail (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of e-mails (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4).

15. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, no evidence has been led by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The opposite party No. 3 tendered into evidence affidavit dated 12-3-19 of Ramesh Sharma (Ex. OP-3/1) and photocopy of bank statement (Ex. OP-3/2).

16. Learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings.

17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

18. In the case in hand, these are admitted facts of the parties that complainant got his mobile connection bearing No. 94177-77058 recharged for Rs. 499/- under online App i.e. “My Airtel App.' of the opposite parties No. 1 &2 through his debit card issued against Saving Bank Account No. 3467000102124864 by opposite party No. 3.

19. The allegation of the complainant that despite his repeated requests and e-mails (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4) his phone connection was not recharged whereas an amount of Rs. 499/- was debitted from the account of the complainant through above said debit card.

20. On the other hand, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 admitted that complainant visited their office and they assured that matter will be settled within 20 days. The opposite party No. 3 admitted that they transferred Rs. 499/- for recharge from the saving account of complainant to the account of opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

21. A perusal of file reveals that as per Transaction Details ( Ex. C-2) on 1-9-2018, an amount of Rs. 499/- was debited from the account of complainant. Ex. C-3 is the e-mail dated 20-10-2018 sent by complainant to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 vide which complainant asked the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to refund his money as transaction of recharge of his phone did not take place whereas amount stands deducted from his debit card. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in reply to this e-mail, vide their e-mail dated 21-10-2018 admitted that there is no successful recharge on 1-9-18 of phone connection of the complainant and opposite parties shown regret for the inconvenience caused to complainant. When no refund was made by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, complainant again sent e-mail on 27-10-18 (Ex. C-4) and requested opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to look into the matter. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in reply to this e-mail on 29-10-2018 further confirmed unsuccessful recharge of the phone of the complainant and advised him to contact respective bank support team for better assistance.

22. Thus, above said evidence proved on file that an amount of Rs. 499/- was deducted from the account of the complainant and till 29-10-18, no refund was made to the complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in their written reply also admitted that an amount of Rs. 499/- has been debitted from the account of the complainant on account of recharge of his phone and recharge remained unsuccessfull. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 in not recharging the phone of the complainant despite payment of Rs. 499/- and thereafter when recharge remained unsuccessful, in not refunding the said amount despite repeated requests of the complainant.

23. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly allowed with Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to refund Rs. 499/- to complainant.

24. The compliance of this order be made by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

25. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

26. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced :

    30-3-2022

    (Kanwar Sandeep Singh)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member

     

    (Paramjeet Kaur)

    Member