Haryana

StateCommission

A/26/2016

SANJEEV GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARUL MITTAL

13 Jan 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.26 of 2016

Date of Institution: 07/11.01.2016

                                                           Date of Decision: 13.01.2016

 

Sanjeev Goyal S/o Sh.Tarlochan Lal r/o H.No.1070, Sector-15, Panchkula.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:              Ms. Parul Mittal, Advocate counsel for   appellant.

 

                                                   O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

          Sanjeev Goyal-Complainant-appellant is in appeal against the order dated 10.12.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short “District Forum’), Panchkula, whereby his complaint has been allowed and OP has been directed to refund the excess charges recovered from the complainant, and to grant him a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Briefly stated, complainant was using services of Bharti Airtel Ltd.-OP through mobile NO.8146099999 since 2012.  OP increased his credit limit from Rs.2600/- to around Rs.14000/- during last three years.  Complainant visited USA from 06.07.2015 to 24.07.2015 and got activated international roaming on his mobile on 13.07.2015.  He received a call for 15 minutes in USA and the expected cost of that call was around Rs.1300/- @ Rs.90/- per minute, but, Rs.3640/- were actually billed for that call.  The complainant got the international roaming de-activated through his wife.  On 14.07.2015, he received a SMS at 8.44 A.M. regarding de-activation of international roaming, but, he again received a message on the same day at 2.55 P.M., whereby his voice called was billed for Rs.5725/-.  When, the complainant approached the OP regarding this, he was informed that the matter will be finally settled after 22.07.2015.  According to him, the services of the OP were not found reliable as a single call of 15 minutes was billed for Rs.3360/- and even after de-activation of international roaming, another call for Rs.5725/-.  Still, the complainant paid Rs.3302/- under protest.  Aggrieved against this he approached the learned District Forum claiming compensation amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith litigation charges of Rs.20,000/-.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued by District Forum to the OP through registered post, but the same had not been received served or unserved.  None appeared on behalf of the OP, which was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 23.10.2015.

4.       In Appeal before us, the complainant-appellant has vehemently contended that the relief granted by the learned District Forum is wholly adequate and disproportionate to his status, mental agony and harassment suffered by him. Therefore, he has claimed enhancement of the same, mainly on account of his status and inconvenience suffered by him while he was in abroad.

5.       We have heard the complainant at length and have also gone through the record. So far as, the deficiency in service on the part of the OP is concerned, it stands well established against them.  That is why the learned District Forum has allowed the complaint by holding the OP guilty of the same. The only grievance, therefore, to be considered is whether the compensation awarded is adequate or not.  Under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complainant can only be awarded compensation  for the deficiency in service on the part of the OP and the harassment suffered by him.  The status of the complainant is not to be taken on account while judging the deficiency in service and awarding compensation. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides an additional remedy to a complainant for the redressal of his grievance i.e. in addition to the remedy available to him under any other law.

6.       Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum as the relief granted is wholly adequate and proportionate to the grievance of the complainant and the deficiency in service of the OP. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as a devoid of merit.

 

January 13th, 2016                  Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                               Judicial Member                                              Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.