DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.450 of 29-09-2010 Decided on 16-02-2011
Harbans Singh Grewal, aged about 62 years, son of Sh.Hazur Singh Grewal son of Sh.Chanda Singh, resident of 441 Urban Estate, Phase-I, Bathinda, now at #281, Urban Estate, Phase-I, Bathinda. .......Complainant
Versus Bharti Airtel Limited, Aravali Crescent, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi, through its CEO. Nodel Office, Bharti Airtel Limited, C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-II, SAS Nagar (Mohali)-160055. Goyal Distributors, opposite Hotel Silver Star, First Floor, Amrik Singh Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Proprietor. ICICI Bank Limited, Bibiwala Road, near 100 Feet Road Chowk, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager. ......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.G.S.Chugh, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.Sunder Gupta, counsel for opposite party No.1. Sh.Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.4. Opposite party Nos.2&3 exparte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding mobile No.98720-87305 of Airtel since 2006. The complainant is holding account bearing No.016301555555 with the opposite party No.4. The complainant went to Australia where he continued to use his Airtel mobile No.98720-87305 to remain in touch with his family and friends. On 14.06.2010, the complainant credited Rs.1,000/- through internet banking in favour of the opposite party No.1 for recharge on the said mobile number. On 17.06.2010, he received a message from Airtel on his mobile number which can be read as “From: AP-Airtel 17 June 2010 11:23 AM We have received your payment of Rs.1,000/-. To confirm your last 3 repayments, kindly dial *121*4# ” but the said amount of Rs.1,000/- was not credited against the account of the said mobile number of the complainant by the opposite party No.1. The complainant sent e-mail to the opposite party No.2 for crediting the amount of Rs.1,000/- in his mobile account. The complainant informed the opposite party No.2 not to contact him on his Airtel number as it would cost him Rs.100/- per minute and he requested the Nodal Officer to contact him to +61-405964664 but no action was taken by the opposite party Nos.1&2 in the matter. The complainant kept on contacting the opposite party No.2 through e-mails. The opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to send the statement of his bank showing the entry vide which the amount of Rs.1,000/- was credited to his Airtel mobile account. The complainant sent the copy of his saving account to the opposite party Nos.1&2 wherein it clearly shows that Rs.1,000/- has been credited to his Airtel number on 14.06.2010. The opposite party also started giving updates on FIFA Football world cup on the said mobile number and started deducting amount from his mobile account daily although the complainant had not subscribed to said facility and had not asked for it. Due to this act and conduct of the opposite party Nos.1&2, the complainant had to make an unscheduled visit to Bathinda to sort out the matter by incurring heavy expenses. The complainant approached the opposite party No.3 being franchisee of the opposite party No.1 who asked the complainant to submit his fresh Identity proof. On 02.09.2010, the complainant submitted his Identity proof to the opposite party No.3. Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 has flatly refused to credit the amount of Rs.1,000/- in the mobile account of the complainant. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite party No.1 filed its separate written statement and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another” (Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004) has held 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 under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act, any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the Telegraph Authority and person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided would be decided by arbitration. The opposite party No.1 has pleaded that the complainant had been informed that the said amount was not received by them and the same could not be credited in the mobile account of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 has denied that the complainant had travelled all the way from Australia to India to settle the dispute of Rs.1,000/- only. The complainant had made up false story just to abuse the process of law. 3. The opposite party No.4 has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, their relationship is of borrower and lender. 4. The opposite party Nos.2&3 despite service of summon, have failed to appear before this Forum. Hence, exparte proceedings are taken against the opposite party Nos.2&3. 5. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 6. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. 7. The complainant has submitted that the complainant is holding mobile No.98720-87305 of Airtel. He is holding an account bearing No.016301555555 with the opposite party No.4. The complainant went abroad (Australia) but he kept on using the abovesaid mobile number in abroad also. On 14.06.2010, he credited Rs.1,000/- through Internet Banking in favour of opposite party No.1 for recharge of his abovesaid mobile number. On 17.06.2010, he received a message from Airtel on the abovesaid mobile number which can be read as under:- “From: AP-Airtel 17 June 2010 11:23 AM We have received your payment of Rs.1,000/-. To confirm your last 3 repayments, kindly dial *121*4# ” but the said amount of Rs.1,000/- was not credited against the account of the above mentioned mobile number of the complainant by the opposite party No.1. The complainant sent e-mail to the opposite party No.2 for crediting the amount of Rs.1,000/- against of his mobile number and it replied through e-mail assuring him to do the needful. He requested the Nodal Officer to contact him on +61-405964664. The opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to send the statement of his bank account to show the entry of Rs.1,000/- which was credited to his Airtel mobile account. The complainant sent the account statement of his saving bank account issued by the opposite party No.4 to the opposite party No.1 wherein it was clearly shown that an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been credited to Airtel on 14.06.2010. The complainant has further submitted that the opposite party of his own started giving updates on FIFA Football world cup on the abovesaid mobile number and started deducting the amount from his mobile number daily, although the complainant had not subscribed this facility. The complainant submitted his Identity proof on 02.09.2010 to the opposite party No.3 as asked by it and requested it to credit Rs.1,000/- in his mobile account. The complainant has subscribed for service of 'Not To Disturb' but the opposite party has kept on sending obscene message. On 08.09.2010, the complainant received obscene message from the opposite party No.1 which was very humiliating and embarrassing. Furthermore, the opposite party No.1 has flatly refused to credit Rs.1,000/- in the mobile account of the complainant on the ground that the amount has not been credited in the Airtel by the Banker of the complainant i.e. opposite party No.4. The bank pass book shows that an amount of Rs.1,000/- has been credited by the Bank vide details BIL/000160538931/Airtel/9872087305 but despite this, the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have not credited the amount of Rs.1,000/- in the mobile account of the complainant. 8. The opposite party No.1 has submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled General Manager, Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan and Another has held that the special remedy is provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, under this the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. The opposite party No.1 has taken another legal objection that the complicated and complex questions of law and facts is involved which needs elaborate evidence which can be only decided in the Civil Court, not by Consumer Forum. The opposite party No.1 has further submitted that it has been informed to the complainant, the amount has not been received that was sent by him. The opposite party No.1 has already apologized to the complainant for the wrong activation of such service and also credited the amount to Airtel number which was deducted for activation of such services. The opposite party No.1 has denied that the complainant had travelled all the way from Australia to India just for Rs.1,000/-. 9. With regard to legal objection that remedy under Section-7B of Indian Telegraph Act is available for any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus between the Telegraph authority and person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided is barred under Consumer Protection Act. With regard to this in the present complaint, the money sent by internet banking through opposite party No.4, is not credited in the mobile account of the complainant by the opposite party Nos.1&2. Hence, the authority cited by the complainant is not applicable in present case as facts and circumstances are different in the present case than those of in case titled above. Moreover, there is no such complicated and complex question of law and facts is involved which needs elaborate evidence as pleaded by the opposite parties. 10. The opposite party No.4 has submitted that it had paid Rs.1,000/- to the opposite party Nos.1&2 which was credited by the complainant by using Internet banking. 11. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the opposite party No.4 has credited an amount of Rs.1,000/- in the account of the opposite party No.1 but the opposite party Nos.1&2 have failed to credit the said amount in the mobile account of the complainant. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, this Forum is of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Nos.1&2. Hence, this complaint is accepted with Rs.1,000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party Nos.1&2 and dismissed qua opposite party Nos.3&4. The opposite party Nos.1&2 are directed to credit the amount of Rs.1,000/- in the mobile account of the complainant. Compliance of this order be done within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. '
Pronounced in open Forum 16-02-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member |
