Bharti Airtel Ltd V/S Amrik Singh - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/547

Amrik Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

23 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No: 547 dated 27.11.2019. Date of decision: 23.09.2022.

Amrik Singh Sakhira S/o. Late Sh. Bachan Singh, aged about 66 years, resident of H. No.945, Alamgir Enclave, Gill Byepass, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana, Mobile No.98780-72564. ..…Complainant

Bharti Airtel Limited, C-34, Airtel Complex, Phase-2, Industrial Area, Mohali (S.A.S. Nagar)-160055 through its Manager.
Bharti Airtel Limited, G-454, IC Tower, BRS Nagar, Opp. Verka Milk Plant, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant : Sh. Amrik Singh Sakhira in person.

For OPs : Sh. Govind Puri, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has been residing at House No.1505, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana since 1990. The complainant has also been using internet services of the OPs at the said residence since 25.07.2011 and has also been paying Rs.1700/- per month as internet charges. The internet connection of the complainant is No.0161-4361033 and membership No.7005165233. The complainant constructed a new house at 945, Alamgir Enclave, Gill Byepass, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana in August 2018 and shifted to the new house on 10.08.2019. The complainant requested the OPs vide email dated 27.07.2019 at 08.30 PM to close the internet account as he has shifted to new residence and at his new residence, the Airtel internet lines were not available. However, despite the request made by the complainant on 27.07.2019 through email, the OPs did not close the account and continued charging rent. The complainant again sent email dated 07.11.2019giving a reference of previous email dated 27.07.2019. The complainant further wrote a letter dated 08.11.2019 to OP2 but to no avail. The complainant received an email on 15.11.2019 from

2. The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and the remedy available to the complainant is under Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and not under Consumer Protection Act. On merits, OPs denied having received any request for disconnection/closure of the connection in question. The OPs have further pleaded that they do not have any email Id such as

3. In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. CW1 to Ex. CW11 and closed the evidence.

4. The counsel for the OPs suffered a statement that the written statement be treated as evidence of the OPs.

5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the complainant as well by the counsel for the OPs and gone through the record carefully.

6. In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that he had shifted his residence from Urban Estate, Dugri, Ludhiana to Alamgir Enclave, Gill Byepass, Malerkotla Road, Ludhiana w.e.f. 10.08.2019 and prior to that, he had informed the OPs vide email dated 27.07.2019to disconnect/close the internet account installed at his Dugri address. Copies of emails are Ex. C4 and Ex. C5. Though the receipt of such emails has been denied by the OPs and it has been claimed that the said email Id at which the emails were allegedly sent by the complainant do not belong to them but in this regard, the OPs have not led any worthwhile evidence to prove that the emails were not received by them. It is further in evidence that the complainant even sent notice Ex. C6 and Ex. C8 08.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 respectively which were also not responded to by the OPs. Once the complainant had shifted to a new address where the internet services of the OPs were not available, due to which the connection could not be shifted and once a request was made by the complainant that the internet connection should be disconnected, it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs that the request of the complainant was not acted upon. In the given circumstances, the OPs are not entitled to claim/recover any internet charges in respect of the disputed connection from the complainant from 27.07.2019 onwards. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OPs are directed not to claim any bill/charges in respect of internet connection/services from 27.07.2019 onwards. However, this order will not preclude the OPs to recover the charges pending, if any, of the period prior to 27.07.2019.

7. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to the OPs not to claim any bill/charges in respect of internet connection/services from 27.07.2019 onwards. However, this order will not preclude the OPs to recover the charges pending prior to 27.07.2019. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

8. Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

(Jaswinder Singh) (K.K. Kareer)

Member President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.