Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/127/2023

ABHINAV KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	127 of 2023
Date  of  Institution	:	01.03.2023
Date   of   Decision	:	19.02.2024

 

 

 

 

Abhinav Kumar, H.No.44, Near Gugga-Madi Mandir, Sarangpur, Chandigarh 160014

….Complainant

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd., SCO 1028-1029, Opp. ISBT, Sector 22, Chandigarh 160017

….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

        MRS.SURJEET KAUR              MEMBER

 

PRESENT:-    Complainant in person

Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Counsel for OP

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A (Eng.), LLM, PRESIDENT

         The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he has purchased new Airtel Post Paid connection with Vanity No.99152315666 costing Rs.2500/- from the OP on 15.10.2022 and made payment through UPI mode. It is stated that the payment through UPI mode was successful and an amount of Rs.2500/- was deducted from the account of the complainant (Ann.C-3), but the Official of the OP stated that the said transaction was declined from the side of Airtel and the amount so deducted will be refunded to the bank account within 3 days. On the asking of official of OP, the complainant paid Rs.2500/- (Ann.C-4).  It is stated that when the complainant approach the OP to lodge his complaint about non-refund of Rs.2500/- paid through UPI which the OP alleged to have been declined from the side of Airtel, but the OP refused to help the complainant. The complainant raised the issue of chargeback with the bank but the bank stated that Merchant has provided the service to the customer, hence they closed the case (Ann.C-6).  The complainant informed the response of the Bank to the OP Company but the OP did not pay heed nor refunded the excess amount of Rs.2500/-.  Hence this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OP as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice with a prayer to direct the OP to refund an amount of Rs.2500/- as well as to pay compensation and litigation expense.

2]       After service of notice, the OP has put in appearance and filed written version stating that the complainant made payment of Rs.2500/- through UPI mode for vanity number of Airtel Postpaid connection 99153-15666 but the same was not received by the OP company. It is submitted that the complainant himself has attached the correspondence at Page No.17 of the complaint that the payment of Rs.2500/- with transaction ID2210150819387E101429755 made on 15^th October at 13.49 PM had failed at EZETAP and Airtel has not received the payment. It is also submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the Bank as a party to prove that the payment was transferred and credited in the account of the company. Denying all other allegations, lastly it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

 

3]      Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OP made in its reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record.

 

6]       From the perusal of the documents on record especially Ann.C-7 (Bank Statement of complainant), it is proved that payment of Rs.2500/- made by the complainant to OP on 15.10.2022 through UPI has been deducted from his account being successful transaction and no reverse entry said transaction or amount has been made in his account.  The complainant also made payment of Rs.2500/- to the OP vide receipt Ann.C-5. Thus it is observed that the complainant has made twice payment of Rs.2500/- for same purpose to the OP and as such, the refusal of the OP to refund the same, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

7]       In view of the above findings & discussion, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly allowed against the OP. The OP Company is directed to refund an amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant along with lumpsum compensation of Rs.5000/- towards harassment & mental agony caused due to deficient act of OP, which also includes litigation costs.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

8]       The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

9]       The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.     

Announced

19.02.2024                                                           Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER