Haryana

Panchkula

183/2015

SANJEEV GOYAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

PARUL MITTAL

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	183 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	11.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	10/12/2015

 

Sh Sanjeev Goyal S/o Sh Tarlochan Lal R/o HNo 1070  Sector 15 Panchkula

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

Bharti Airtel Limited  Plot No 21 Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park  Chandigarh 160101

 

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

 

 

Before:                 Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs. Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr. S.P. Attri, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:     Mr. Parul Mittal, Adv., for the complainant.

              Op is ex-parte.

             

ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor,  Member)

 

 

1.                          Briefly stated that the complainant was using services of the OP through Mobile No.8146099999 since 2012 as a valued customer but the OP has increased his credit limit from Rs.2,600/-  to around Rs.14,000/- in last three years. The 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/- @ 90 per minute but he felt astonished on receiving a SMS at 11.34 pm on 13.07.2015 about mentioning of Rs.3640/- in the bill for the said 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 surprisingly he again received a massage on the same day at 2.55 P.M. whereby a bill has been shown as Rs.5725/- for voice call despite the fact that he had not used the number for any voice call. The complainant wrote a letter to OP regarding this then it was replied to him that final bill be sent after discount as applicable and that they are not a position to verify the detail of voice call as the international partner would share the same only after 22.07.2015.  The services of the OP are not reliable as a single call of 15 minutes costs Rs.3360/- and then Rs.5725/- even after de-activation of International Roaming.  The complainant requested the OP on 16.07.2015 to give contact and reference of US partner to enable him to find details of Rs.5725/- besides providing of final bill after discount. On reaching India, the complainant received final bill of Rs.3300/- which included Rs.1350/- for one International incoming call and Rs.175 for 7 SMS’s which were sent to helpline No.121 on 13.07.2015. The payment of bill of Rs.3302/- was made by the complainant under protest.  On 25.07.2015 the complainant visited the dealer of OP at Delhi and lodged a complaint regarding not working of his number where he came to know that the SIM has got faulty and requires replacement and it will take 3 days. On 28.07.2015 the complainant deposited the SIM alongwith necessary documents with the dealer of OP but he received the SIM only on 07.08.2015 after 10 days. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP and again confirmed the facts mentioned in the notice on 17.08.2015 by reminding it but the OP replied that it is not in a position to locate the case of the complainant. On 19.08.2015, the OP gave irrelevant reply that there is no current outstanding against No.8146099999. On 03.08.2015 the complainant again requested the OP for ensuring the bill for the unused period i.e. 28.07.2015 to 06.08.2015 on pro rata basis but despite that the OP had sent a bill of Rs.1159/- on 21.08.2015 for full month. On 26.08.2015 the complainant reminded the OP for final response for notices served upon it. Since the complainant had suffered continuous harassment and mental agony from 13.07.2015 to 07.08.2015 so he go served a combined legal notice but instead of written response the complainant had received phone calls on 01.09.2015 and 03.09.2015 whereby the OP had apologized for sending messages of inflated bill wrongly. Thereafter the complainant sent an email to OP and requested to remain neutral and not biased to Airtel on 03.09.2015. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on its part. In evidence the complainant has tendered affidavit and document Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C19.  

2.                          Notice was issued to OP through registered post and the same has not been received served or unserved. None has appeared on behalf of the OP. It is deemed to be served.  Hence OP was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.10.2015.

3.                          We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the case file minutely and carefully.

4.                          The complainant is resident of Panchkula. The factum of his being resident of Panchkula has not been controverted by OP as none appeared on its behalf inspite of service and ex-parte proceedings were ordered against it vide order dated 23.10.2015. The residential status of the complainant while obtaining the mobile connection is un-controverted. He received the bills in that residential status. That being so, a part of cause of action accrued to him while being a resident of Panchkula. That invests the Forum at Panchkula with the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this complaint.

5.                                 The complainant has made precise affidavit-supported averments with regard to the manner in which he was over-charged for international roaming and even after he had got the international roaming de-activated. He has placed on record documentation Annexure C-3, C-4 and C-5 in support of effect that the OP, on being forwarded a grievance of over billing, indicated that the “unbilled amount is only an indication of your usage and your final bill will be generated considering all discounts applicable as per your bill plan. Since you have an internet data pack active, please be assured that appropriate data benefits will be calculated at the time of bill generation” (extraction from Annexure C-3). Those benefits have, on point of fact, not been granted to him. The averments, having a relevant bearing upon the determination of the grievance made by the complaint in this complaint, are recorded in Annexure C-9 which, by the very nature of things i.e. OP being ex-parte, have not been controverted by the party opposite. The OP did not act in the matter inspite of the issuance of a number of reminders having been mailed to it. Reference, in the context, may be made to Annexure C-14, C-15 and C-17. The documentation placed on record by the complainant includes a legal notice which too was not responded by OP.

6.                                 In view, thus, of the fact that the precise documentation-based averments made by the complainant have not been controverted by OP which opted to refrain from entering appearance in the proceedings, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP by over billing the former i.e. the complainant while he was visiting U.S.A. from 6^th July 2015 to 24^th July 2015.

7.                                 We may notice here that the refrain of an OP from the proceedings denies to the Forum an opportunity to appreciate the validity or otherwise of the averments made by a complainant because the averments are not controverted by the party opposite. The appreciation of evidence by the Forum becomes all the more appropriate when there is a contest between the parties and the Forum tries to cull out a legally appreciable view.

8.                                 We would, accordingly, allow this complaint and order that: -

            a)         OP shall refund the excess charges made from the complainant. The determination of the excess amount shall be in accord with the averments made by the complainant;

            b)        OP shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as a compensation for the mental agony, harassment and deficiency of service on its part in making in appropriate billing; and

            c)         OP shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

9.                                 OP shall comply with this order within a period of one month from the date its communication to it comes about.

10.                               A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint.

Announced

10.12.2015           S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR                DHARAM PAL

                                    MEMBER            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

         

 

                                                                   ANITA KAPOOR

                                                                    MEMBER