Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/115/2016

Sh. Sanjeev Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

08 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/115/2016
Date of Institution	:	17/02/2016
Date of Decision	:	08/05/2017

 

 

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

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

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

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Parul Mittal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajat Pabbi, Proxy counsel for Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OP.

 

Per S.S. Panesar, President

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that on 23.12.2015, the complainant received a bill of Rs.2,195.41 for the billing period 20.11.2015 to 19.12.2015 in respect of his mobile No.81460-99999.  The complainant called 121 Airtel helpline on 31.12.2015 and intimated that his monthly bill average was only Rs.1,500/- and asked for the reasons of inflated bill, upon which he was told that there was a wrongly billed charge of Rs.199/- and Rs.60/- and that the corrected bill would be sent shortly. The OP admitted the credit of Rs.259/- on 2.1.2016 and asked the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,898.85. Being felt cheated, the complainant requested the OP to recheck the bill as the same was still on higher side. On 6.1.2016, the OP confirmed that the issue raised had been escalated and also that the roaming pack @ Rs.75/- was not active on the mobile of the complainant.  On 17.1.2016, the complainant served a legal notice to the OP for not giving reasons of inflated bill and deactivation of roaming pack. However, the OP, instead of giving reply to the notice, on 18.1.2016 informed the complainant that adjustment of Rs.315/- had been posted to his account.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.         OP in its written reply has averred that there is no question of any cheating as the system is totally computerized and if there is any human error, the same is rectified in the next billing cycle. The complainant has resorted to file the complaint just to get the undue gains. It has been stated that in spite of adjustment given to him and after taking compensation from the District Forum, Panchkula for the same cause of action, the complainant has resorted to file a fresh complaint before this Forum.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Replication was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OP.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties. 
6.         The main grouse of the complainant has been that the OP issued an inflated bill on 21.12.2015 for an amount of Rs.2,195.41. On 2.1.2016, the OP admitted wrong billing of Rs.259/- alongwith service tax of Rs.37.56.  Again on 12.1.2016, the OP gave credit of Rs.325/- to the complainant for wrong billing of mobile connection, which shows that the OP has been indulging in unfair trade practice. The OP has taken an objection that the complainant earlier filed a complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula regarding the same cause of action, but, however, the objection raised by the OP is without any substance because the said complaint pertained to July, 2015 whereas the present complaint pertained to wrong billing made in December 2015.  Moreover, the claim made vide earlier complaint was partly allowed, which further shows that the OP was in the habit of providing deficient services earlier even.
7.         Another grouse of the complainant has been that the OP has deactivated roaming package to the complainant on 16.1.2016.  The complainant issued a legal notice and various e-mails to the OP regarding inflated bill as well as deactivation of the roaming package, copy of the emails account for Annexure C-10 to C-12 while replies sent vide email on behalf of the OP account for Annexure C-13 to C-15.  In the reply, the OP has admitted their fault regarding wrong billing. The OP has failed to make any specific reply regarding deactivation of roaming service. Furthermore, in the written reply filed on its behalf, which amounts to implied admission of the allegations of the complaint, the OP has also failed to produce any documentary proof to impress upon this Forum that no deactivation of the roaming facility has been made on the mobile phone of the complainant. The OP could very well produce phone calls record of the complainant to prove the said fact. But, it was not pressed into service for the reasons best known to the complainant. Therefore, we are constrained to hold that the OP is deficient in service on that point also.
8.         From the aforesaid discussion, it emerges that the complainant has been able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As such, the instant complaint stands partly allowed.  OP is directed as under:-

(i)     To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of deficient services;

(ii)    To further pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 

9.         This order be complied with by OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

		Sd/-	Sd/-
08/05/2017		[Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S. Panesar]
hg		Member	President