Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/217

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sharwan Sehgal Adv.

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.217 of  20.03.2017

Date of order          :   21.11.2017

 

Amit Kumar aged about 30 years s/o Sh.Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.605-B, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana.

Complainant

Versus

 

1.Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101 through its Manager.

2.Shri Bakul Bhalla, C/o Bharti Airtel Limited, Airtel Office, Ferozepur Road, Opposite Verka Milk Plant, Ludhiana.

Opposite parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         Sh.Sharwan Sehgal, Advocate

For Ops                                     :         Ex-parte

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.              Complainant, a user of mobile phone No.99157-05555 of OP company for the last many years purchased it by paying handsome fee because of its being a premium number. Thereafter, complainant submitted request with OP company for changing this number from postpaid to prepaid. Service of above mentioned number was stopped by Op1 in November 2016 without any notice, message or any other intimation, despite the fact that complainant has paid the sum required for full time validity. Thereafter, complainant approached office of Ops located at Kailash Chowk, Near Civil Lines, Ludhiana and on demand of officials of OP1 of Rs.200/- for a sim as well as of copy of Aadhar Card, those were provided by making the payment of Rs.200/- even. Thereafter, OP2 demanded extra amount on the protxst of giving premium number to the complainant. By not resuming the service of above number, Ops have provided deficient services and as such, complainant claims to be entitled to compensation of Rs.1 lac. Legal notice dated 2.2.2017 even was served, but reply to the same not sent and nor any needful was done. Connection was purchased and used at Ludhiana and office of OP2 is also at Ludhiana and as such, this Forum has jurisdiction.

2.                 OPs are ex-parte in this case.

3.                 Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CA of complainant along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and thereafter, closed the ex-parte evidence. 

4.                 Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for complainant and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

5.                 Ex.C1 is the copy of legal notice sent by complainant to Ops, whereas Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 are the copies of postal receipts and as such, service of legal notice on Ops by complainant is proved. Even receipt Ex.C4 is produced to     show the deposit of Rs.200/- on 17.11.2016 regarding the above referred mobile number. Purpose for which this amount deposited not mentioned in this receipt Ex.C4 dated 17.11.2016 at all. So, from the contents of Ex.C4, it cannot be made out as to for what purpose, this amount of Rs.200/- was deposited. It is the case of complainant that he applied for changing the present number from postpaid to prepaid, but disconnection took place in November 2016 without any notice. When the request for change of number from post paid to prepaid submitted, qua that dates are not mentioned at all and as such, allegations in this respect are vague and general. As and when vague and general allegations levelled, then case of party somewhat is unbelievable. Stoppage of the services of mobile in question took place in November 2016 is a fact claimed by the complainant and as such, deposit of Rs.200/- through Ex.C4 on 17.11.2016 may be for the purpose other than that   of change of number from postpaid to prepaid. In view of that just on strength of Ex.C4 alone, it cannot be inferred that Rs.200/- were deposited by the complainant with OP1 for change of post paid number to prepaid one. Complainant could have got information from Ops through RTI or otherwise regarding the causes for which stoppage of service of his mobile number took place and thereafter, he would have known about the same. No steps for such purpose taken and as such, virtually complainant has not taken steps for knowing reason for stoppage of the services of the mobile. However, complainant faced harassment on account of stoppage of the services and as such, he is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony because even after filing of the complaint on 20.3.2017, none of the Ops appeared and nor they deputed anyone for disclosing the reason of disconnection. Copy of summons of OP1 was handed over to Sh.Karamveer Singh, Clerk in the office of OP1, but despite that none appeared and that is why, Op1 was proceeded against ex-parte. So, it is obvious that OP1 did not bother to respond to the summons sent in this complaint and nor any of Ops bothered to send reply of Ex.C1   and as such, amount of compensation for mental harassment and agony should be somewhat reasonable. Complainant after knowing the reasons of disconnection may challenge that action through another complaint because the vague and general allegations cannot be accepted as discussed in detail above. So, complainant is entitled for compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses only.

6.                 Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed by awarding compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- in favour of complainant and against OPs. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                 File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                              (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                          (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:21.11.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.