Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/146/2017

Mr. Varun Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jaspreet Kaur Somal

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/146/2017
Date of Institution	:	15/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	04/04/2018

 

Mr. Varun Verma son of Sh. Bharat Bhushan Verma, resident of Near Sarafa Bazaar, Tehsil Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib voluntarily residing at Sector-38 West, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited through its Managing Director/Regional Director, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh 160101.

2.     Ankush Malik son of Sh. Pardeep Malik, H.No.7423, Gali No.5, Cinema Road, Ludhiana Pin 141008.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

             

 

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Jaspreet Kaur Somal, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rajat Pabbi, Counsel for OP-1
	:	OP-2 ex-parte

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Summarized allegations are, OP-1 being service provider had provided mobile No.9915424242 and bill account ID No.1162538383 to the complainant. The service was being provided for the last 13 years and payment thereof made till August, 2016.  However, in August, 2016, OP-1 sent email to the complainant for settlement of the account and make payment of Rs.5,650/- failing which the number would be disconnected permanently.  No chance was given to the complainant to check the account of said phone number. Correspondence was exchanged and complainant was compelled to make the payment of the bill of Rs.5,400/- on 30.9.2016. From August 2016, the complainant sent a number of requests to activate his number which was disconnected illegally.  However, no response was received. The number of the complainant was allotted to OP-2.  Hence, the present consumer complaint for compensation and litigation costs.
2.         OP-1 contested the consumer complaint and filed reply. Preliminary objections were raised complaint being not maintainable. On merits, OP-1 justified the disconnection of the mobile number automatically through computerization as there was default in payment of bill. The complainant did not clear the outstanding amount and even in his email dated 22.10.2016, he has admitted that he has not cleared the bills for the last two months.  The power of disconnection was exercised per Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules which authorize the service provider to disconnect the connection in the event of default of payment without notice. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         OP-2 did not appear despite due service, therefore, vide order dated 17.4.2017, he was proceeded against ex-parte.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.  Our conclusions derived from the record are as follows :-
6.         Perusal of the record shows, in prayer clause the complainant had not prayed for restoration of the connection and had rather prayed for compensation being unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs alongwith costs of litigation. This itself shows, restoration of the connection is not wanted by the complainant otherwise he would have prayed for the same.
7.         Perusal of the facts averred in the body of the consumer complaint shows, some bill of amount of Rs.5,400/- was raised, but, it was not paid. As per complainant, it was unilateral. If the complainant wanted the services, he could have deposited the bill amount under protest and then to agitate his claim before this Forum or any other court of competent jurisdiction. The complainant is none else, but, a learned legal practitioner. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the entire bill amount has been paid by the complainant.  OP had taken the help of Rule 443 which shows, in case if on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone service provided are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, then the telephone may be disconnected without notice. It is also the case, as referred in the reply, that a cheque of Rs.8,600/- was given by the complainant towards the discharge of bill liability which was dishonoured. No clear cut proof has been provided by the complainant that he has cleared the liability till the date of the bill.  Payment of bill was withheld as the complainant had right to examine the call record in the bill. It is not the case that wrong calls were recorded in the bill raised by OP-1. 
8.         Keeping in view the aforesaid material on record, complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Resultantly, the present consumer complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 
9.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

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