Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

cc/13/2013

Mr. T. Jayakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. Chennai Law

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 06.08.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.13/2013

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

Mr. T. Jayakumar,

S/o. Mr. N. Thiagarajan,

Senior VP, Business Dev,

Lanson India Private Ltd., (Source HCV Company),

Old No.38, New No.76, Pushpanagar Main Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                 

 

         ..Versus..

1. The Nodal Officer,

South ABTS,

Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Oceanic Towers, 6^th Floor,

No.101, Santhome High Road,

Santhome,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

2. The General Manager,

Customer Relations,

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Circle Office,

Nos.11/1 & 12/1, West ‘A’ Wing,

Maruthi Infotech Centre,

Amarjyothi Layout,

Domlur,

Bangalore – 560 071.

 

3. The Managing Director / CEO,

Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Oceanic Towers, 6^th Floor,

No.101, Santhome High Road,

Santhome,

Chennai – 600 028.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for complainant                :  M/s. CHENNAI LAW ASSOCIATES

Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 :  Mr. L. Mouli

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of rs.1,09,800/- wrongly deducted from the ECS account of the complainant pertaining to A/c No.048201000015815 of Indian Overseas Bank with interest at 24% p.a. from January 2002 to till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the complainant was allotted mobile No. 9840019242 of Bharti Airtel Ltd., by the opposite parties and was using the same for some time.  Since the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite parties, the complainant requested the opposite parties for deactivation of the said mobile number with effect from 05.06.2002.  Evenafter acknowledging the letter by the opposite parties and allotment of the said mobile number to some other person from 30.11.2002, the opposite parties deliberately collected amounts though ECS without giving any information to the bank authorities regarding the deactivation and cancellation of ECS.   The complainant submits that it is the duty of opposite parties’ telecommunication to ensure the deactivation and cancellation of ECS  deduction etc.   The complainant submits that the opposite parties after accepting the letter and the allotment of mobile number to third parties without cancellation of ECS and after deactivation continued the withdrawals through ECS till October 2002.    The complainant submits that several email addressed to the opposite parties requesting to refund the amount wrongfully deducted through ECS ended in vain due to evasive answer of the opposite parties.  The complainant submits that the opposite parties admitted in their letter dated:01.03.2011 that the Airtel mobile number was not registered in the name of the complainant right from June 2002 to till October 2011. The complainant submits that a detailed letter dated:17.11.2011 and legal notice dated:27.03.2012 sent to the opposite parties requesting the refund of the wrongful deductions / withdrawal of the amount with interest has not been responded by the opposite parties.   The  complainant submits that he sent legal notice of demand for refund on 27.03.2012 and therefore filed this complaint.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 to 3 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 to 3 specifically deny each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.     The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that  the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that the complaint is very clear that the complainant had problem as early as in the year 2002.  The present complaint has been filed in the year 2012  after a lapse of 10 years.  If at all the complainant had any complaint with regard to the wrongful deduction / withdrawal through ECS the complainant should approach the bank to stop ECS payment.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that for the claim of damages the complainant has to approach the Civil Court since this case requires both oral and documentary evidences.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 state that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint and they are not liable to repay the sum of Rs.1,09,800/-  which was wrongly deducted from January 2002.  The opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service and they are not liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages and compensation for mental agony.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3. 

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.1,09,800/- wrongly collected by the opposite parties with interest at 24% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties field their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was allotted mobile No. 9840019242 of Bharti Airtel Ltd is admitted.  Since the complainant was not satisfied with the services of the opposite parties, the complainant requested the opposite parties for deactivation of the said mobile number with effect from 05.06.2002 as per Ex.A7.  Evenafter acknowledging the letter by the opposite parties and allotment of the said mobile number to some other person from 30.11.2002, the opposite parties deliberately collected amounts though ECS without giving any information to the bank authorities regarding the deactivation and cancellation of ECS.   Further the contention of the complainant is that it is the duty of opposite parties’ telecommunication to ensure the deactivation and cancellation of ECS  deduction etc.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties after accepting the letter, Ex.A7 and the allotment of mobile number to third parties without cancellation of ECS and after deactivation continued the withdrawals through ECS till October 2002 which amounts to illegal attitude of the opposite parties.  Ex.A1 is the Statement of Accounts showing the wrongful  deductions / withdrawals to the tune of Rs.1,09,800/-.   

6.     Further the contention of the complainant is that several email addressed to the opposite parties requesting to refund the amount wrongfully deducted through ECS ended in vain due to evasive answer as per Ex.A17 to Ex.A19.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties admitted in their letter dated:01.03.2011 that the Airtel mobile number was not registered in the name of the complainant right from June 2002 to till October 2011. Ex.A14 e-mail itself establishes that the deductions through ECS continuously made till October 2011 is illegal which amounts to unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the complainant is that a detailed letter dated:17.11.2011 and legal notice dated:27.03.2012 sent to the opposite parties requesting the refund of the wrongful deductions / withdrawal of the amount with interest has not been responded as per Ex.A20 & Ex.A21 by the opposite parties caused great metal agony proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he sent legal notice of demand for refund on 27.03.2012 and filed the complaint on 14.08.2012 is well within the limitation period of 2 years from October 2010.    But the opposite parties has not denied that they have not deducted / withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,09,800/- through ECS  from the Account of the complainant till October 2010 proves that the claim is not barred by limitation and the cause of action is continuing.

7.     The contention raised by the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the present complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that the complaint is very clear that the complainant had problem as early as in the year 2002.  The present complaint has been filed in the year 2012  after a lapse of 10 years.   If at all the complainant had any complaint with regard to the wrongful deduction / withdrawal through ECS the complainant  should approach the bank to stop ECS payment.   But on a carful perusal of the receipt, it is very clear that during the month of June 2002, since the opposite parties services is not satisfactory, the complainant submitted a letter dated:04.06.2002 as per Ex.A7 to deactivate the mobile No.9840019242 and the opposite parties has also allotted the mobile number to the 3^rd party in the month of September 2002 but deactivated the complainant’s account number only on 03.01.2011 as per Ex.A8 which is not denied proves the claim is not barred by limitation.   It is also seen that no intimation was given and continued withdrawals till October 2011.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 is that for the claim of damages the complainant has to approach the Civil Court since this case requires both oral and documentary evidences.  But it is apparently proved from the pleadings and documents that after making request for deactivation and allotment of mobile number to 3^rd party deducted of amount  though ECS for a long period continuously and there after deactivating the complainant’s mobile number.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,09,800/- being wrongly deducted from the complainant’s Account along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e) 16.08.2012 to till the date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,09,800/- (Rupees One lakh nine thousand and eight hundred  only) being wrongly deducted from the complainant’s Account along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 16.08.2012 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 10.12.2018 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation of damages for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1		Copy of Statement from Indian Overseas Bank from 01.01.2000 to 31.12.2002
Ex.A2		Copy of statement of Indian Overseas Bank from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004
Ex.A3		Copy of statement from Indian Overseas Bank from 01.01.2005 to 31.12.2006
Ex.A4		Copy of statement from Indian Overseas Bank from 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2008
Ex.A5		Copy of statement from Indian Overseas Bank from 01.01.2009 to 04.02.2011
Ex.A6		Copy of ECS deductions towards mobile No.98400 19242 showing the total amount deducted
Ex.A7	04.06.2002	Copy of request letter by the complainant to Bharthi Mobinet Limited requesting for deactivation of the cellphone connection bearing No.98400 19242 with effect from 05.06.2002
Ex.A8	25.02.2011	Copy of mail from the complainant to the opposite parties indicating an amount of Rs.1,14,063.98/- being wrongfully deducted from the ECS account of the complainant
Ex.A9	25.02.2011	Copy of reply from the opposite parties registering the request
Ex.A10	27.02.2011	Copy of reply by mail from the opposite parties
Ex.A11	28.02.2011	Copy of reminder from the complainant for a reply from the opposite parties
Ex.A12	28.02.2011	Copy of mail from the opposite parties requesting for exact details for action in the matter
Ex.A13	28.02.2011	Copy of complaint resent by the complainant with details of the amount illegally deducted from his ECS account
Ex.A14	01.03.2011	Copy of reply from the opposite parties informing the complainant to interact with the Nodal Officer for resolution of the complaint
Ex.A15	27.06.2011	Copy of reply from the Nodal Officer of the opposite parties regretting processing of the request of the complainant
Ex.A16	04.08.2011	Copy of request from the complainant for payment/refund by the illegal deductions from his bank account
Ex.A17	15.10.2011	Copy of email sent by the complainant as a last communication before taking legal action
Ex.A18	28.10.2011	Copy of reminder from the complainant to the opposite parties for resolution of the dispute
Ex.A19	28.10.2011	Copy of reply mail from the opposite parties
Ex.A20	17.11.2011	Copy of letter from the complainant addressed to the Managing Director Arthi Mobinet Limited calling upon the opposite parties to refund the amount wrongfully deducted from  his bank account
Ex.A21	27.03.2012	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the Nodal Officer of the opposite parties
Ex.A22		Copy of proof of acknowledgement card

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 TO 3 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT