Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/446/2018

Sh. Dinesh Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Singal

23 Aug 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/446/2018
Date of Institution	:	11/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	23/08/2019

 

Dinesh Anand son of Late Sh. B.C. Anand, Resident of House No.240, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

 

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.       Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Registered Office at Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110070.

 

2.       Branch Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, having its Office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh-160101.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.D.K. Singal, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Dinesh Anand, the Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Bharti Airtel Limited and Anr. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he opted the telecom services of Opposite Party No.1 since 10 years back by taking a postpaid mobile connection no.9815077934. Apart from the said number, the Complainant had availed other four postpaid numbers for the use of his family members and all the said connections are connected under one tariff plan. As per the tariff plan opted by the Complainant he has to pay monthly rental of Rs.2,999/- excluding other service taxes but the said tariff did not include the facility of International Roaming. In the said tariff plan, Opposite Party No.1 had offered the calling facility as well as Internet facility by fixing a credit limit of Rs.70,000/-.  The Complainant has been running his own travel agency for earning his livelihood. In the month of May 2018, the Complainant planned for travelling to Uzbekistan to attend some business meeting with his Uzbekistan based client. Accordingly, the Complainant contacted the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.1 and asked the different tariffs/ plans for Uzbekistan.  After going through the various plans, the Complainant asked the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.1 to active the Base Plan for international roaming for a monthly rental of Rs.149/-. The Complainant travelled to Uzbekistan on 8.6.2018. During his trip to Uzbekistan the Complainant had used the services of Opposite Party No.1 with the help of their network partner  by making outgoing calls and also made some overseas calls and SMS total amounting to Rs.2,120/- (Approx. Rs.2200/-) and except the said service no other services had ever been availed by the Complainant during his foreign trip. The Complainant got shocked when suddenly his number had been blocked by the Opposite Parties on 05.09.2018 without assigning any reason. Immediately, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties, through his wife, to know the reasons for the blockage of number. Only at that point of time, Opposite Parties informed that the number in question had been blocked as the same had crossed the credit limit of Rs.70,000/- and by that time bill of Rs.2,23,294.66 had already been raised by the Opposite Parties which includes the service tax of Rs.34,043.76 and Rs.1,84,080/- on account of usage qua the internet, calling facility and SMS facility. Thereafter, the wife of the Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to unblock the number at the earliest in order to avoid any complication in the Complainant’s Uzbekistan trip. The Complainant returned back to India on 12.06.2018 and contacted number of times with the Customer Care of Opposite Party No.1 by raising his grievance as to why huge amount of bill had been raised by them, but of no avail. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that their billing system is fully computerized and does not involve any human intervention. The Complainant had been charged for the usage. The billing happens in the computerized billing system of the Company only when a voice service/SMS/VAS is used by the customer. The Complainant was thus rightly charged as per usage made while on international roaming and he is bound to make the payment as per the said usage. The Opposite Parties were well within their rights to disconnect the services for non-payment of outstanding dues. It has been asserted that the credit limit is set on the basis of Customer’s age on network, the payment pattern etc. and is just an indicator of monthly usage. Usage of the services beyond credit limit does not entitle the subscriber to forego the legitimate charges payable to the Company. The subscriber shall always be responsible to pay for all the calls made and services obtained even beyond the credit limit. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant also filed replication wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         On perusal of the documents annexed with the Complaint, we are of the view that the Complainant himself had opted for base plan of Opposite Parties for international roaming at the rate of Rs.149/- rental, which did not include any benefit except the free incoming SMS during foreign travel. Thus, in view of above, the Complainant has to bear the expenses for the incoming calls, outgoing calls and outgoing SMS and any other internet usage charges etc.  We have also perused the bill of the Opposite Parties annexed by the Complainant as Annexure C-3, wherein the Opposite Parties had fixed the credit limit of Rs.70,000/- for the Complainant. In case the bill of the Complainant goes beyond the said limit, the Opposite Parties reserves the right to suspend the mobile/internet facility by sending e-mail/SMS/notice in writing; whereas, in the present case the Opposite Parties have not stopped the service beyond the usage of Rs.70,000/-. Hence, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties could have raised the maximum bill of Rs.70,000/- (which is a credit limit) to the Complainant and therefore, charging the Complainant more than the credit limit of Rs.70,000/- proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, which in turn certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
8.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]   To withdraw the charges of Rs.2,23,175.76P forthwith and to issue a fresh bill to the Complainant not exceeding his max. credit limit i.e. Rs.70,000/- with immediate effect and after payment of the revised bill, to restore the service on the number of the Complainant as well on the other connected numbers which have been used by the family of the Complainant.

 [b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

 

9.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of the directions mentioned in sub-para [a] above. 
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                     

23^rd Aug. 2019

                                  Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”