Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/292/2020

Pushkar Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

12 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	292 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	22.07.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	12.06.2023

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pushkar Bhardwaj, # 2174-D, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector 63, Chandigarh  

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

Bharti Airtel Limited, Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector 39, Tower A, 4^th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana (Delhi & NCR), India, Pin Code 122001 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SMT.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Complainant in person

   Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel of OP

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

         Concisely put, the complainant obtained connection of Airtel Xtream Fibre - Account NO.017246032397 from OP installed at his residence in Sector 46, Chandigarh on 30.5.2020 by making three month’s advance payment of Rs.2828/-.  It is stated that the official of OP assured the complainant that this connection can be shifted to other location/new address of the complainant, free of cost, within two days from such request.  Thereafter, on 30.6.2020, the complainant requested the OP Company for shifting the said connection at his new address, followed by reminders as well as email.  However, when the OP did not pay any heed to the connection shifting request of the complainant, left with no option, he got it suspended.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The Opposite Party in its written version while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the connection shifting request of the complainant received on 30.6.2020 was cancelled as the customer was not contactable and the new location of the complainant was not viable for shifting as that area was non-wired.  It is stated that the area where customer required shifting was not viable for shifting, otherwise there was no occasion to lose the esteem customer. Denying all other allegations, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by complainant controverting the assertions of OP made in its reply

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have perused the entire record.  

 

6]       The complainant admittedly availed Fibre-Broadband connection from the OP by paying three months advance amount of Rs.2828/- in May, 2020 and requested for its shifting/transfer to his new address in June, 2020.  But the said connection was not shifted by the OP and the complainant had to obtain a new/fresh Fibre-Broadband connection.

 

7]       The reason put forth by the OP for not shifting the connection of the complainant is that the said area was not viable for shifting as the new location was non-wired, as is clear from the reply of the OP as well as Ann.C-5 – the company’s response dated 15^th July, 2020 stating that “We regret to inform you that we are infeasible to provide you the connection as new address is come under non-wired area. We request to please suggest decision towards the connection.”

 

8]       However, the complainant was provided a new Fibre-broadband connection by the OP Company itself at his new location/address in July, 2020 as is clear from Ann.C-6 and this fact has also not been disputed or denied by the OP in rebuttal or during arguments. The OP failed to justify as to how they provided a new/fresh connection to complainant at new location in that very month i.e. July, 2020 when the said area was infeasible and non-wired area. Thus it is clearly made out that the OP Company illegally & wrongfully denied the shifting of old connection of the complainant to his new location by falsely stating it to be infeasible being non-wired area, whereas a fresh connection has very well been provided to him at fresh cost.  Thus the act & conduct of the OP Company not only proves its deficiency in service but also proves its indulgence into unfair trade practice, as a result, the complainant has to suffer mental agony, harassment, loss and has been forced to enter into present litigation.    

 

9]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for rendering deficient services and its indulgence into unfair trade practice, which also includes litigation expense.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.7000/- apart from above relief.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th June, 2023                                                                      

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER