Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/163/2019

Jagat Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel - Opp.Party(s)

Asish Deswal

12 Mar 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.163 of 2019

Date of instt.:30.04.2019

                                                                        Date of Decision:12.03.2021.

 

 

Jagat Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Sh.Shiv Pal, now resident of house No.46, Gurukul  Campus, Gurukul, Kurukshetra, Haryana since last two years and previously resident of c/o Prince General Store, Sec.3, near Ravidas Mandir, Talwara township, Talwara, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab.

                                                                                      …….Complainant.                                                 Versus

 

1. The  Managing Director, Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasantkunj Phase-II, New Delhi.

2.The Nodal Officer, Haryana Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.41 and 42, Industrial Park, Sector 2, Growth Centre, Saha District Ambala.

3. The Nodal Officer, Punjab, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh.

         

….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before        Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                                                       

 

Present:      Sh.Ashish Deswal, Advocate for the complainant. 

Sh.Parveen Chopra Advocate for the OPs.

             

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Jagat Singh against Bharti Airtel and others, the opposite parties.

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant  had purchased a Bharti Airtel Postpaid connection when he was residing in Punjab as mentioned above in 2005 and his mobile number is 98150 31131. The complainant has been paying the bills generated against his mobile number regularly via online transaction through Paytm. The complainant is Bhajnopdeshak by profession and performs all over India. Because of his professional commitments, the complainant needs to travel a lot all over India to perform the programs organized by his clients, therefore, he depends on his mobile to fulfill his commitments professional as well as personal.    He has been enjoying the services on the above said mobile number until the issue/problem of wrong and excessive billing by changing the active plan on his number has arisen in October 2018 by the OPs.  The plan was changed by the OPs without any notice to the complainant by the OPs.  The problem firstly  arose in the month of October 2018 when the OPs illegally changed the active postpaid plan of Rs.499/-  to the plan of Rs.649/- on the mobile of the complainant without his consent.  The complainant had been harassed by doing  so as he had to made complaints to the customer care and OPs time and again.  The customer care had procrastinated the matter for two months before restoring the plan to Rs.499/- in the month of December 2018.  The plan was restored only when the complainant showed his intention to port his mobile from Airtel connection due to the harassment suffered by him.  During this period, the complainant kept paying the bills regularly.  It is further averred that again issue of excessive and wrong billing arose in the bill for the month of Nov. 2018 (amounting to Rs.625.40) due to wrongly changed plan in the bill for the month of Dec. 2018 (amounting to Rs.720.98) due to wrongly charged amount of Rs.100/- on account of late payment fees without any fault on the part of the complainant. Generally the bill of the complainant against the said mobile is fixed at Rs.589/- (Rs.499 + taxes) but the bill for the month of October 2018 (amounting to Rs.714/-) to December 2018 were excessive without any fault of the complainant. The complainant again had to make several calls to the customer care of OPs to get the bills corrected in the respective months. It is  mentioned here that the payment of Rs.588/-, Rs.579 and Rs.638/- respectively were made as per instructions of the customer care of OPs against the bills for the month of October Nov. and December 2018 respectively in the respective months. It is further averred that since the month of October 2018, the issues of wrong and excessive billings were not resolved permanently but only temporarily by making adjustment in the bills. Every time the complainant had to make calls to the customer care to raise a complaint about the wrong and excessive billing. Due to harassment given by the OPs, the complainant decided to   port his postpaid number and applied for the same and thereupon on 18.1.2019 OPs called the complainant and lured with several attractive plans with several attractive offers, a discount of Rs.100/- out of plan of Rs.499/- for a year and other refunds and ensured that in future no problem either relating to bills or network will be caused to him.  Because of  the assurance the complainant did not proceeded with the porting process but the discount of Rs.100/- as promised was not given by the OPs. It is further averred that inspite of above assurance, on 3^rd of March 2019, the OPs again generated wrong and excessive bill for the month of Feb.2019 and an amount of Rs.999/- was added in the bill of complainant, shows as “third party content charges” on account of Amazon Prime Yearly membership in addition to regular monthly rental.  The complainant never applied for the said membership. On contact, OPs told the complainant that process to deactivate the Amazon Prime  Yearly  Member via SMS at 155223. The complainant followed the said process on the same day i.e. 12.3.2019 to deactivate the Amazon Prime Yearly Membership.  But the said grievance of the complainant was not redressed and again on contact of the complainant, customer care told that OPs did not raise a complaint on 12.3.2019 to deactivate the said plan. The complainant told the customer care that SMS at 155223 has been sent on 12.3.2019 by him and again requested to raise a complaint relating to issue and give the complaint number, to which the customer care of the OPs showed their inability to raise a complaint at the time  due to some technical error and promised to call back within few hours to raise the complaint but no call was received for days. It is further averred that when no call was received from the customer care of the OPs, the complainant again called  and requested to raise a complaint regarding the matter and further to correct the bill for the month of Feb. 2019 so that he can pay the  bill within the prescribed time limited to avoid the late fee. Upon the request, the complainant was instructed by customer care to pay Rs.471/- to clear the balance of the bill for the month of Feb. 2019, which was paid on the same day i.e. 19.03.2019 by online transaction via Paytm.  The complainant had already made a part payment of Rs.340/- on 5.3.2019 and in this way total amount of Rs.811/- was paid against the bill for the month of Feb. 2019, as per instructions of the customer care of the OPs. The customer care on the same day i.e. 19.03.2019 again demanded four more days to generate the complaint to deactivate the Amazon Membership but again no complaint was generated for deactivation within stipulated time as the said service is still active in the mobile number of the complainant. It is averred that dejected by the above experience and harassment, the complainant again applied for porting his mobile from Airtel whereupon the customer care called the complainant on 22.3.2019 and demanded four more days finally to resolve the issue and requested not to port from Airtel postpaid. Again no call was received from the side of OPs, but  to the contrary on 25.3.2019 the services on the post paid connection of the complainant were discontinued. The services on the mobile number of the complainant were discontinued despite the fact that payments of the last bill as per instruction of the customer care of the OPs were made. The  said mobile number of the complainant is linked with  bank account, IRCTC ticket booking, income tax return and such other facilities and due to   discontinuation of the mobile number of the complainant, great mental agony, harassment and loss has been caused to the complainant. Thus,  such an act on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in services on their part  because  generally a subscriber is given a period of 15-21 days time to pay the bill without late fee and with late fee he can pay the bill beyond such period but no time was given to the complainant by the OPs.Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the OPs has filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to correct the bill for the month of Feb. 2019 and the amount of Rs.999/- charged illegally and wrongly on account of Amazon Prime Membership be refunded together with compensation for the mental harassment caused to him and the litigation expenses.

 

3.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. It is  admitted that plan of the complainant was changed  on 11.10.2018 from 499 to 649. The same was done through the consent of the complainant. The call was made by a customer service agent through the consent of the complainant, the change of plan was implemented on 11.10.2019.The customer Relationship Officer received the consent of the complainant and then changed the plan.  As per current structure and systems of the OPs, no change can be made to the billing plan of any customer without express consent and the same was taken from the complainant. The complainant had called the OPs and on multiple occasions, the OPs have posted waiver as a gesture of good will for the complainant. On 18.1.2019, Rs.100/- was added as a gesture of good will to the account of the complainant. These gestures were made for good will without any admission to guilt and without any prejudice to the rights of the OPs. Thus, when any complaint was raised by the complainant, the OPs has put waivers against the account of the complainant. The total amount of waiver posted to the complainant is Rs.404/- from November 2018 to March 2019. In regard to the Amazon Prime Subscription, as a part of the billing plan that was activated on the number of the complainant, it included a one year subscription of free Amazon Prime Membership and the SMS was sent to the complainant at that time. It is submitted that the answering OPs sent SMS to the complainant three days prior to the renewal of the said plan at Rs.999/- per year, the SMS was sent without instructions on how to deactivate the service as well.  It is submitted that the complainant has not suffered any harassment  and it is wrong to blatantly allege that the OPs do not provide  quality service to the customers. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction have been raised.

 

4.                The  complainant in support of his complaint has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed his evidence.

 

5.                On the other hand, OPs in support of their case have filed affidavit Ex.RW1/A and tendered documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed their evidence.

 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

 

7.                The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating averments made in the complaint has argued that the plan was changed by the OPs without any notice to the complainant by the OPs.  It is argued that the problem firstly  arose in the month of October 2018 when the OPs illegally changed the active postpaid plan of Rs.499/-  to the plan of Rs.649/- on the mobile of the complainant without his consent.  The complainant had been harassed by doing as he had to made complaints to the customer care and OPs time and again. It is argued that  several times excessive bills have been sent by the OPs. It is also argued that an amount of Rs.999/- was added in the bill of complainant, shows as “third party content charges” on account of Amazon Prime Yearly membership in addition to regular monthly rental.  The complainant never applied for the said membership. On contact, OPs told the complainant that process to deactivate the Amazon Prime  Yearly  Member via SMS at 155223. The complainant followed the said process on the same day i.e. 12.3.2019 to deactivate the Amazon Prime Yearly Membership.  The complainant has also argued that the mobile connection was also disconnected without any notice to the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that the OPs be also directed to refund the sum of Rs.999/- charged from the complainant on account of Amazon Prime Yearly membership for the second year in the  bill of February 2019 as the said scheme was free for one year and the complainant never gave consent for the extension of the said scheme. The learned counsel for the complainant has also argued that this act on the part of the OPs amounts to deficiency in services and the complainant is entitled for compensation on this account also.

 

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the contentions made in the written statement has argued that the plan of the complainant was changed  on 11.10.2018 from 499 to 649. The same was done through the consent of the complainant. The call was made by a customer service agent through the consent of the complainant, the change of plan  was implemented on 11.10.2019. It is also argued that complainant had called the OPs and on multiple occasions, the OPs have posted waiver as a gesture of good will for the complainant. On 18.1.2019, Rs.100/- was added as a gesture of good will to the account of the complainant. These gestures were made for good will without any admission to guilt and without any prejudice to the rights of the OPs. It is also argued that Amazon Prime  Yearly  Member was implemented on the number of the complainant with due consent and SMS  was sent to the complainant. It is also argued that  Rs.999/- were charged for the second year of the scheme as the nothing was charged for  one year as the said scheme was free for the one year and Rs.999/- has been rightly charged from the complainant.

 

9.                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the scheme Amazon Prime Yearly Membership was wrongly implemented by the OPs.  As  per admission of the OPs, this scheme was free for one year but  Rs.999/- have been wrongly charged from the complainant without consent of the OPs for the second year as the complainant never asked to extend the said scheme on his mobile number.  The argument of the OPs that SMS was sent to the complainant is also without any force because everyone is not supposed to see  each and every message received on the telephone and there must have been conservation with the consumer without implementing any scheme on the number of an individual.  This amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant is found entitled to the refund of Rs.999/- from the OPs. By doing so, the complainant has been suffered mental harassment and agony, therefore, the complainant is also entitled for compensation for the same.

 

10.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the sum of Rs.999/- to the complainant charged from the complainant on account of Amazon Prime Yearly Membership scheme.  The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for the mental harassment and agony caused to the complainant due to deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of  45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which the  complainant  will be at liberty  to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

 

Announced in open commission:

Dt.:12.03.2021.                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)                                                                                                  President.

 

 

(Issam Singh Sagwal),              (Neelam)         

 Member                                     Member.