Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/122/2019

Ram Swaroop Rawat - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Feb 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/122/2019
Date of Institution	:	26/02/2019
Date of Decision	:	07/02/2020

 

 

Ram Swaroop Rawat, R/o H.No.43 (1^st Floor), Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Tech. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh – 160101. Regd. Office: Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070.

 

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Mohit Rawat, Auth. Representative of Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant was having a Post-Paid Airtel Mobile No. 9316130944 with monthly rental of Rs.470/-. The Complainant went to Dubai for 7 days from 13.01.2019 to 19.01.2019 and did not opt for any international roaming pack. On return, to his astonishment, the Opposite Party billed the Complainant for Rs.4,299/- (Rs.470/- monthly rental + Rs.3829/- international roaming). The Complainant instantly raised a complaint for waiver of these charges, but the same was declined on the ground that the Complainant had used the services in Dubai and that the Opposite Party automatically activated the services. The Complainant escalated the complaint to the Appellate Authority of the Opposite Party, but to no avail as he was given only a waiver of Rs.826/- and was asked to make the balance payment on priority. Fearing discontinuation of services by the Opposite Party, the Complainant paid the said amount on 28.01.2019. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant had used the services while in international roaming at Dubai and the Complainant was charged as per the usage. However, as a goodwill gesture and being a valuable customer, the Complainant was given a waiver of Rs.826/- and was requested to make the remaining amount of Rs.3158.21/- before the due date, which amount the Complainant paid. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Authorized Representative of Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         The present case is a classic case, where the Complainant wants to have the cake and eat it too.
8.         The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Complainant is liable to pay for the international roaming pack or not.
9.         Per pleadings of the parties and material on record, the answer to this question is in the affirmative for the reasons recorded hereinafter.
10.         It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having Post-Paid Airtel Mobile No. 9316130944 with the Opposite Party. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant visited Dubai for 7 days from 13.01.2019 to 19.01.2019. It is borne on record per Annexure-A (copy of the bill) that the credit limit of the Complainant is Rs.3600/- and the Opposite Party issued the bill of Rs.4299/- to the Complainant. The main allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party unilaterally activated the international roaming pack and raised the bill from him. Perusal of the itemized statement (Page No.9 of the paper-book) shows that the Complainant extensively used the International Roaming Pack, as such charges of Rs.649/- per day claimed by the Opposite Party.
11.         It is thus apparent that it was upon the Complainant how to use his mobile data or internet while aboard, but he on his own extensively used the data for his comfort and as such, the Opposite Party is not at any fault and rightly raised the bill from the Complainant. Moreover, it is also on record that the Opposite Party as a goodwill gesture gave a waiver of Rs.826/- to the Complainant and desired the Complainant to make the remaining amount, which was in fact, paid by him. 
12.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

07^th February,2020                            

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

 “Dutt”