Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/15/2018

Anjali Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Arun Singla

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/15/2018
Date of Institution	:	09/01/2018
Date of Decision	:	23/04/2018

Anjali Bhandari daughter of Sh. Jitender Bhandari, Resident of H.No.27-A, Bhambri Enclave, Ananta Apartment, Gazipur Road, Zirakpur (SAS Nagar), Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited through its CEO/Circle Incharge for Punjab Circle, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.

2.     Airtel Store through its Retail Manager/Store Supervisor having Sales Code No.8128, SCO 407-408, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                              

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Arun Singla, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Allegations, in brief, are the complainant approached the office of OP-2 and obtained a postpaid connection after completing the codal formalities viz. submission of identification proof etc. Thereafter, postpaid connection bearing No.98154-59954 (SIM No.8991021917044844811U) was issued by the representative of OP-2 to the complainant.  It is the case, the complainant used the said mobile number from 22.10.2017 to 24.11.2017 i.e. on that day she received a message from 121 on her mobile regarding change of sim number. The complainant was shocked as she had not opted for any change of SIM number and accordingly replied in the negative.  Cell number was registered with many departments i.e. bank etc. Many requests were made, but, nothing positive was heard.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs to immediately restore the services of the aforementioned mobile, pay compensation and litigation costs etc. 
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed written statement and, inter alia, raised the preliminary objections of complainant trying to take advantage of her own wrong and she is not entitled to any compensation whatsoever. On merits it is admitted that new postpaid connection bearing No.98154-59954 was issued to the complainant and she used the same from 22.10.2017 to 24.11.2017.  It is also the case that one subscriber Ms. Navita Bhandari was using this number since 2012 and due to outstanding amount, the number was disconnected and she got it reactivated on 22.11.2017.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions, as derived from record, are as under :-
5.         Per pleadings of the parties, it is the case that on being applied for, complainant was issued postpaid connection bearing No.98154-59954.  It is also the admitted case that the complainant used this number from 22.10.2017 to 24.11.2017.  It is also the case that this number was got registered with the bank and other services from where OTPs were used to be received.  It is also the admission that on the date when the mobile number in question was issued to the complainant, it was free from all encumbrances. Hence, there was no justification with the OPs to disconnect the same and get it activated in the name of Ms. Navita Bhandari, especially when the complainant was not at fault at any stage.  If Ms. Navita Bhandari was a defaulter and the number was disconnected due to non-payment of dues, then there was certainly no occasion for the OPs to get it reactivated in the name of Ms. Navita Bhandari on 22.11.2017 without the complainant’s consent.  It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To immediately restore the mobile No.98154-59954 in the name of the complainant. However, alternatively, if there is any hitch to get it disconnected from Ms. Navita Bhandari and assigned in the name of the complainant, then the OPs shall pay Rs.50,000/ -to the complainant as damages for the unfair trade practice on their part.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused to her;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

7.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
23/04/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President