Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/844/2019

Smt. Subha Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/844/2019
Date of Institution	:	19/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	28/10/2022

 

Smt. Subha Devi, House No.299A Daria Chandigarh attorney Deepak Kumar Jha (son)  & Ravinder Kumar Jha.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

Bharti Airtel Limited (Airtel), Plot No.21, 2^nd Floor, Chandigarh GPO, Chandigarh 160017, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Kishangarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SMT. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ravinder Kumar Jha, authorized representative of the complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Smt.Subha Devi, complainant against the opposite party.  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant had recharged mobile No.9779227148 (hereinafter referred to as “aforesaid mobile number”) with the OP through Paytm by paying an amount of ₹169/-. However, after recharge of the aforesaid mobile number on 19.6.2019, it was disconnected by the OP on 21.6.2019.  It has been averred that the complainant was admitted in GMSH-16, Chandigarh due to her health issue on 15.6.2019 and at that crucial time, she was in need of the mobile and as the same was disconnected by the OP, she has suffered a lot.  The complainant remained in the hospital till 23.7.2019.  After that her elder son Sh. Deepak Kumar Jha visited the Airtel Store of the OP for collecting the new sim with complainant’s Aadhaar card and his driving licence for verification of address and relationship, but the same was denied to him.  The aforesaid recharge was valid for 28 days, but, since OP had disconnected the Airtel connection of the complainant, as a result complainant had to suffer a lot. In this manner, alleged that there was deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and prayed that the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount and new sim from the OP.    Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written reply, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of concealment of facts and maintainability. On merits, denied that the aforesaid mobile number was ever disconnected by the OP, rather alleged that the same is still active as per the record maintained by the OP.  So far as issuance of new sim was concerned, same can be provided to the subscriber only after identification due to security reasons.  Averred, the aforesaid mobile number may not be working due to damage to the mobile set or sim card.  The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied. The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted her claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the aforesaid authorized representative of the complainant, learned counsel for the OP and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, following points are formulated for discussion and proper adjudication :-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for?

Point No.(i) & (ii)

4. Both these points are interconnected, hence are taken together to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
5. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant is the customer of the OP, in whose favour the aforesaid mobile number had been issued and the same was recharged on 19.6.2019, and validity of the recharge was for 28 days, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid mobile number was disconnected by the OP on 21.6.2019 as a result of which there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the claim  as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant, or if the said mobile number is still active and has never been disconnected by the OP and the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
6. Close scrutiny of the entire evidence on record of the case file, coupled with the rival contentions of the parties, are discussed as under:-

1. Annexure A-1 is the transaction receipt which clearly indicates that the aforesaid mobile number of the complainant was recharged for an amount of ₹169/- on 19.6.2019.  Annexure A-2 is the medical record of the complainant which indicates that she remained admitted in the General Hospital, Sector 16, Chandigarh in the month June-July 2019.  Copy of email dated 10.8.2019 indicates that the matter was reported by the son of the complainant, Sh. Deepak Kumar Jha, who had been authorized by authorization letter executed by the complainant, by lodging a complaint with the Hon’ble State Consumer Commission regarding the disconnection of the sim.
2. The authorized representative of the complainant has contended that as it has come on record that the OP had disconnected the aforesaid mobile number on 21.6.2019 despite of the fact that the same was recharged for 28 days on 19.6.2019, the complainant has proved deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has stated that as there is no iota of evidence on record in order to show that the aforesaid mobile number was ever disconnected by the OP, rather as per record of the OP, the same is still active, complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, be dismissed with costs.  There is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP as there is no iota of evidence on record in order to show that the aforesaid mobile number was ever disconnected by the OP and the same is not active, especially when the complainant has failed to produce or prove any record showing that her aforesaid sim was disconnected by the OP.  By merely making allegation that the aforesaid mobile number of the complainant was disconnected by the OP on 21.6.2019, will not automatically prove the allegations made in the consumer complaint. Moreover, it is alleged in para 6 of the consumer complaint that after about one month, the son of the complainant had approached the Airtel outlet of the OP for collecting the new sim and the same was not issued to him as he was asking for the sim in the name of his mother, who was not present at that time and the OP might have refused to issue sim in the name of the customer without verifying the identification due to security reasons.

7. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is safe to hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and she is not entitled for the prayed claim. Accordingly, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 28/10/2022 hg			sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/- [Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member