Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1070/2016

Major Anil Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Gourav Goel

28 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1070/2016
Date of Institution	:	16/12/2016
Date of Decision	:	28/08/2018

 

Major Anil Ahuja S/o Shri B.L. Ahuja, R/o H.No.42, Sec.4, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Chairman, Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector 39, Tower-A, 4^th Floor, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana.

2.     Regional Branch/Office Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No. 21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh.

3.     M/s Adarsh Services, House No. 213, Sector 52, Chandigarh, through its Proprietor.

……Opposite Parties

 

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

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Salina Chalana, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
	:	Complaint qua Opposite Party No.3 dismissed.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant requested the Opposite Party No.1 to upgrade his existing Set Top Box (Customer I.D. No. 3007636447) to H.D. Set Top Box, which was done on 15.09.2016 on payment of Rs.449/-. The Complainant received the Set Top Box with one output port which could be connected to the T.V. set only as opposed to the original Set Top Box being used by him with two ports one for the T.V. set and the second one for the Home Theatre System. The upgraded Set Top Box was thus incompatible with the Home Theatre System of the Complainant and as such on 24.09.2017, he requested the Opposite Party No.1 to either provide him the Set Top Box with two out ports or re-install the original Set Top Box, but to no avail. In this backdrop, a legal notice dated 30.09.2016 was sent to the Opposite Parties, but the same did not fructify.  With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed their written statement admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was provided services as per the demands and Scheme and the Complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         In view of the Statement made by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the title page of the Complaint itself, since the claim against Opposite Party No.3 has been given up, the Complaint against Opposite Party No.3 was ordered to be dismissed vide order dated 19.04.2017.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the contesting Parties.
7.         In support of his case, the Complainant has placed on record cash receipt of M/s Adarsh Services dated 15.09.2016, which accounts for Annexure C-1, to show that new Set Top Box was installed at his place of residence.
8.         The Complainant has alleged that the upgraded Set Top Box was incompatible with his Home Theatre System. However, the Complainant has failed to adduce any concrete evidence to substantiate the same. In the absence of any such proof the allegation of the Complainant falls flat.   
9.         Thus, we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Party. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.   
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/08/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”