Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/865/2017

Vineet Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Inder Singh

16 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/865/2017
Date of Institution	:	18/12/2017
Date of Decision	:	16/08/2018

 

Vineet Krishan son of Shri Ravinder Krishan, Resident of House No.306, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                   

V E R S U S

 

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Authorized Representative, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Tech. Park, Kishangarh, Chandigarh – 160101.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ravinder Inder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.
		Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Shri Vineet Krishan, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Bharti Airtel Limited (hereinafter called the Opposite Party), alleging that he had been using fixed landline and broadband connection of the Opposite Party under Rs.1533/- plan. On coming across an advertisement, the Complainant made a request to the Opposite Party in Feb. 2017 to change the aforesaid Plan to Rs.799/- p.m. However, the Opposite Party continued to charge the Complainant Rs.1533/- till 27.10.2017, which forced the Complainant to stop the bill payment of two months. Thereafter, on receipt of SMS to pay an amount of Rs.4797, the Complainant depositing Rs.4800/- on 06.10.2017 to avoid discontinuation of the services. Subsequently, on 11.10.2017 the Complainant received another SMS to pay Rs.6801.761 i.e. bill for the months of July-Aug, Aug-Sept. 2017. Thereafter, again on 18.10.2017, the Complainant got another SMS to pay Rs.3139/-. Similar, SMS were received by him on 21.10.2017, 25.10.2017 and 28.10.2017 and consequently, the Opposite Party disconnected the services of the Complainant on 30.10.2017 as a result of which the internet stopped working. It has been asserted that the Complainant being an Income Tax Practitioner had to file I.T Return of his Clients by 31.10.2017 and on account of the deficient services of the Opposite Party, he had to suffer huge loss. Finally, on 31.10.2017, the Opposite Party credited the amount of Rs.4800/- in the account of the Complainant and the services were restored. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant by filing its written statement, inter alia, admitting that the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded the Complainant himself attached an e-mail dated 16.10.2017 vide which it was informed that the Bill Plan has been changed with effect from 16.10.2017 and after change of Plan, no cause of action survives for filing the Complaint. It has been asserted that the system is totally computerized and in case the amount is not credited in the account, then the SMS is generated automatically. The Complainant has been charged as per the usage and there is no question of charging extra amount.  It has been urged that the Complainant has alleged that his services were discontinued on 30.10.2017 and restored on 31.10.2017 after crediting the amount of Rs.4800/- in the account of the Complainant. As the system is computerized, the services were restored immediately after the receipt of the amount. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         On perusal of Para No.5 of the Complaint and Annexure C-1, we find that the pending amount of Rs.4,800/- was deposited by the Complainant on 6.10.2017 by way of net banking and inspite of the same the Opposite Party continued to send the default notices by SMS. Even the Opposite Party has wrongly disconnected the services of the Complainant on 30.10.2017 as a result of which the internet stopped working. Finally, on taking up the matter the Opposite Party resumed the services on 31.10.2017. The disconnection of services of the Complainant on 30.10.2017 inspite of the payment of necessary payment which was made on 06.10.2017, to our mind, certainly amounts to grave deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, which in turn has definitely caused unprecedented mental agony and harassment to the Complainant and rather propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant. At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant, despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time & again.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
7.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

[b]    To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

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

	Sd/-		Sd/-
16/08/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]		[Surjeet Kaur]
	Member		Presiding Member
“Dutt”