BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 662 of 06.11.2015. Date of Decision: 14.06.2016.
Ajit Singh aged 71 years son of Shri Harnam Singh, resident of House No.95-XF, X-Block, Maharishi Balmiki Nagar, Haibowal Khurd, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Bharti Airtel Limited, City Office: Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh through its Authorized representative.
- Bharti Airtel Limited, SCO 42, Kips Market, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana thorough its Manager.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : In person.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by claiming that he is a retiree from railway and got telephone connection from Ops through sim no.9779791084 after submitting the requisite documentary proof of residence either of Amritsar or of Ludhiana. This sim card was of prepaid connection. On 21.08.2015, wife of complainant namely Smt. Gurdev Kaur was admitted in emergency ward in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana due to abdomen pain and on that day, Ops displayed a SMS on the phone of complainant for calling upon him to submit new photo and necessary documentary proof. Ops made the above said sim card nonfunctional despite the fact that balance of Rs.800/- was still available in that sim. Complainant claims that due to non functioning of sim card, he could not manage for the admission fee of the hospital. Thereafter, complainant visited Kips Market office of Ops on 22.08.2015 for contacting the officials and despite submission of photograph. voter ID card, Adhaar card, photocopy of passport, PIN card copy, railway service card and identity card, Ops did not make the sim functional. Again complainant contacted OP2 being incharage on 24.08.2015, but they did not deal the complainant properly. Again on 26.08.2015, complainant contacted incharge of Airtel office, but sim card of complainant made functional for few calls only. The said sim card was again made nonfunctional without any rhyme and reason. Sim card is not functioning till today, but SMS of the company are received on this sim. By pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, complaint filed by claiming that the sim card in question be made functional and Ops be directed to pay compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,00,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-
2. Notice of this complaint was sent to Ops. Earlier Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate filed memo of appearance on behalf of Ops, but thereafter none appeared for Ops despite wait for long time and as such, Ops were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 02.05.2016.
3. In exparte evidence, complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and then closed exparte evidence.
4. Today complainant suffered statement to the effect that he do not want to get sim card no.9779791084 to make functional because he is to get number of mobile from BSNL. Complainant sought refund of Rs.800/- and of Rs.500/- (which were imposed as costs vide order dated 19.02.2016 by this Forum). Besides compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses claimed by complainant through this recorded statement of today.
5. Written arguments not submitted, but only oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
6. Today complainant through his recorded statement has withdrawn his claim regarding making of sim card no.9779791084 functional and as such, relief in that respect need not be granted.
7. Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 are the documents produced on record for showing as if wife of complainant taken to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana and that the complainant has due proof of his identity in the shape of service certificate, pension payment card issued by Northern Railway, election identity card and the passport as well as Adhaar card. Ex. C7 is the document showing as if wife of complainant was taken to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana on 21.08.2015 i.e. the date on which the mobile of complainant became non functional. Complainant through complaint as well as through affidavit has claimed that due to non functioning of the sim card, he could not manage for the admission fee of the hospital in time and that is why he lodged complaint with Ops on 22.08.2015 and then again on 24.08.2015 and 26.08.2-015. Even if record of those complaints has not been produced, but the contents of complaint and affidavit cannot be termed as false qua going of the sim card non functional because no rebuttal evidence has been led by Ops due to their being exparte. Even no proof adduced as to whether the amount of Rs.800/- stands as balance in the sim card as on 21.08.2015 except the affidavit of complainant. Even if proof qua outstanding balance amount of Rs.800/- not adduced, but despite that allegation qua sim card going nonfunctional has to be accepted as true. Reasons for making sim card as non functional by Ops not shown and as such, deficiency on the part of Ops is to that extent, particularly when despite the lodging of complaint, sim card was made functional for few calls alone is alleged in affidavit Ex. CA of complainant. Costs of Rs.500/- were imposed on Ops vide order dated 09.02.2016 due to non filing of written statement, but those costs have remained unpaid to complainant and as such, certainly complainant is entitled to those costs of Rs.500/-. Those costs will be made as part of litigation expenses now by including the said amount of Rs.500/- therein.
8. Ex. C1 is the OPD card issued in the name of complainant by DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, whereas Ex. C7 is the Radiodiagnosis & Imaging Report dated 21.08.2015 of Gurdev Kaur. That report pertains to diagnosis of abdomen pain and as such, contents of affidavit Ex. CA are supported by Ex. C7 to the extent that wife of complainant taken to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana. However, record of admission of Gurdev Kaur in DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana on 21.08.2015 not prodeced and as such, mental harassment, if it all suffered by complainant was for the day of 21.08.2015 or for the day of 3 visits to Ops on 22.08.2015, 24.08.2015 and 26.08.2015. Besides complainant has to remain without mobile services for few days and as such, keeping in view these sufferings of complainant in mind, compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- allowed. Ops are exparte in this case and as such, litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- more allowed in favour of complainant and against the Ops. By adding Rs.500/- as costs imposed vide order dated 19.02.2016, complainant becomes entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.1,500/-.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed exparte in terms that Ops will pay compensation for mental harassment and agony to complainant of amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) and even they will pay Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) as litigation expenses (including costs imposed vide orders dated 19.02.2016). Payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However, complaint stands dismissed regarding remaining reliefs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:14.06.2016.
Gobind Ram.
