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

========

Jagjit Singh son of Lt. Sh. Mohinder Singh r/o H.No.2076, Victoria Enclave, Sector 50-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.  Bharti Airtel Limited, Circle Office : 224, Okhla, Industrial Area, Phase III, New Delhi through its Manager.

2.  Bharti Airtel Limited, Local City Office : Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL             PRESIDENT

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL         MEMBER

              DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Vishal Madan, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Manav Bajaj, Adv. for Sh. Sumeet Goel, Adv. for OPs

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the marketing agents of the OPs approached the complainant for use of fixed landline and broadband services at his home and the same was installed vide telephone NO.4622076.  He used the services upto the 2^nd week of November 2009 and applied for disconnection of the same vide disconnection slip dated 12.11.2009 and surrendered the equipments vide Customer Premises Equipment Return Note dated 13.11.2009. Thereafter he received bill dated 18.11.2009 for Rs.479/- which was paid by him vide receipt dated 1.12.2009.  However, he was surprised to receive another bill of Rs.550/- for the period 17.11.2009 to 16.12.2009 whereupon he met the officials of the OPs and brought to their notice that he had already surrendered the telephone. However, again he received bills dated 18.1.2010 for Rs.1,174/- and 18.2.2010 for Rs.1,699/- upon which he made a written complaint dated 26.2.2010 to the OPs but still nothing was done and the recovery agents of the OPs started humiliating and harassing his family members. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.        In their written reply by way of affidavit of Ms. Poonam Nagpal, Senior Executive, the OPs did not dispute the factual matrix of the case.  However, it has been submitted that confirmation calls were made to the complainant  wherein the disconnection was not confirmed by the complainant and, therefore, the telephone connection could not be disconnected but on receipt of summons from this Forum in the instant complaint the disconnection was confirmed and accordingly the bills for the months of December 2009 and January and February 2010 were waived.  It has been denied that any recovery agent ever threatened, humiliated or even visited the house of the complainant.  Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
3.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 
5.        Annexure C-1 is the acknowledgement slip dated 12.11.2009 vide which the complainant requested the OPs to disconnect his telephone connection. Accepting his request, the OPs collected the instrument, modem and ISDN on 13.11.2009 vide Annexure C-2.  The complainant thereafter could not have made any call from the said telephone and was not expected to receive any bill after the billing cycle within which the request for disconnection was made.  Annexure C-3 is the bill showing that the billing period was from 17.10.2009 to 16.11.2009. The complainant was, therefore, liable to pay the amount mentioned in this bill (Annexure C-3) only and not thereafter.  However, the complainant received the bills dated 18.12.2009 (Annexure C-4), 18.1.2010 (Annexure C-5) and 18.2.2010 (Annexure C-6).  In each of the bills, the call and VAS charges or DSL usage charges etc. were ‘0.00’ showing that the complainant was not using the said telephone.  On receiving these telephone bills the complainant approached the OPs and moved an application (Annexure C-7) to withdraw the bills and not to send him any telephone bill thereafter but it had no effect. Thereafter the complainant filed the present complaint on 12.3.2010. The contention of the OPs is that they were to confirm the request for disconnection from the complainant for which confirmation calls were being made to the complainant as regards the disconnection of his telephone connection but the disconnection was not being confirmed by the complainant due to which the telephone connection could not be disconnected.  It is not only surprising but absurd for the OPs to presume that a person who had already returned the instrument, modem and other equipment would receive a telephonic call from the OPs to confirm disconnection.  Since the telephone was not working at all, the question of the complainant having received any such telephone call did not arise.  Moreover, when the complainant has himself given it in writing requesting for disconnection, the OPs were duty bound to disconnect the telephone immediately and not to send him any bill after the billing cycle in which the disconnection was requested for.  It is now contended by the OPs that after the filing of the present complaint the disconnection has been confirmed and, therefore, the telephone was deemed to have been disconnected from the date of filing of the present complaint and the amount of the previous bills was waived.  This fact is also falsified by the bills (now marked as Annexure C-9 & C-10) which show that these bills were sent to the complainant on 18.3.2010 and 18.4.2010.  It, therefore, shows that the OPs were grossly deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant by not disconnecting his telephone from the date he requested for disconnection and further harassing him mentally and physically by sending him the bills even after the disconnection was supposed to have taken place. 
6.        In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed not to demand any charges from the complainant and rather pay him Rs.5,000/- as compensation for causing him mental and physical harassment. They shall also pay Rs.1,100/- as costs of litigation.  The entire amount shall be paid by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which they shall be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @9% per annum from the date of order till the payment is actually made to the complainant. 

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.