CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/315/13

          Date of Institution:-    06.06.2013

          Order Reserved on:- 15.03.2024

                       Date of Decision:-      13.09.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mr. Sanjay Kumar,

S/o Sh. Raj Kumar

R/o H. No. 1028 near Vijay Colony

PanaPaposian, Narela,

New Delhi - 110040

                                                              .….. Complainant

VERSUS

1. BhartiAirtel Limited

(Regd. Office)

Bharti Crescent – 1,

Nelson Mandela Road,

VasantKunj, Phase-II,

New Delhi – 110070

2. BhartiAirtel Limited

Circle Office Plot No.16

Gurgoan (Haryana)

…..Opposite Parties

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he is consumer of mobile numbers 9818880031 and 9818880015 issued by OP. He has been regularly paying the bills. OP has provided a credit limit of Rs.5000/- to him. The OP has stopped the out coming and incoming calls on mobile numbers inspite of payment of bills by him. He has filed various complaint regarding disconnection of both these numbers from 12.09.2012 till 21.02.2013 but in vain. He was employed with TVS credit services ltd., L-95, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. His services have been terminated due to non-functioning of the mobile number. He has been sitting idleafter his termination of services. He has suffered mental pain and agony. A legal notice dated 28.02.2013 was given to the OP but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OPs have filed the joint reply to the effect that complainant has concealed and supressed material facts from the Commission. The complaint is not maintainable in view of section-7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1882. It is admitted that complainant was subscriber of above stated mobile numbers but no credit limit was granted to him. The copy of the bills of mobile number 9818880031from 06.12.2012 to 06.03.2013 are annexure R-2 whereas copy of bills of mobile number 9818880015 from 09.03.2013 – 09.05.2013 are annexure R-3 which clearly shows that complainant is a chronic defaulter. A sum of Rs.3841.09/- was payable against the bill of mobile number 9818880031 till May, 2013 whereas a sum of Rs.1399.39/- was payable against the bill of mobile number 9818880015. The complainant has not paid the bills. The OPs are not aware about the termination of services of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has denied the averments made in the written statement and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint.

4. The parties are directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of the complaint and placed reliance on the documentsEx.CW1/1 toCW1/4.

6. TheOP has filed the affidavit of Sh.Amit Bhatia, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of the written statement and placed reliance on the documents i.e. power of attorney Ex.OPW1/1, bills Ex.OPW1/2 and 3 of both the mobile numbers 9818880031& 9818880015.

7. We have heard the complainant as no one has turned up on behalf of the OP to address arguments and perused the entire material on record.

8. The perusal of the entire material on the record shows that complainant was the consumer of mobile numbers 9818880031 and 9818880015 issued by OP. The perusal of bills Ex.OPW1/2 and 3, pertaining to both these numbers, show that complainant has not cleared the dues. The complainant was to pay a sum of Rs.3841.09/- against the bill of mobile number 9818880031 and a sum of Rs.1399.39/- against the bill of mobile number 9818880015. The SMSswere also sent to the complainant for the payment of dues which is apparent from the Para-8 of the affidavit filed in evidence by the OP.

9. The complainant has failed to show that he has paid the said dues to the OP. The complainant has not filed any document to show the payment of dues which corroborate the version of the OPs that complainant has defaulted in making payment of bills raised against both these numbers. The numbers were disconnected for non-payment of bills. There is no evidence that OP has provided credit limit to the complainant.

10. The complainant has no right to use the numbers on his failure to clear the dues. The disconnection of both the numbers was due to non-payment of dues which does not come within the ambit of deficiency of service.

11. In view of above discussion, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations as set out in the complaint. No deficiency of service is found on the part of OPs and accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 13.09.2024.