BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.211 of 2015
Date of institution: 07.05.2015
Date of Decision: 16.09.2015
Pardeep Angaria, House No.57/9-A, Sawraj Nagar, Tehsil Kharar, District Mohali, Punjab.
……..Complainant
Versus
Bharti Airtel Limited, C-34, Phase-2, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160055.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite Party exparte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
- replace his device with fresh one.
- pay him Rs.95,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and financial loss.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a 4 G connection (9915839611) with ZTE WI-FI Router Device from the OP. The Wi-Fi Router Device was arranged by the OP as per its policy through an authorised dealer Paras Sales Corporation, Chandigarh vide invoice dated 11.04.2014. The total cost of the connection is Rs.4,000/-. The WI-FI Router device has a manufacturing fault. It stops after 10-15 minutes due to which the work gets effected. The complainant complained about this to the customer care and he was informed that this was due to network problem. The complaints made by the complainant did not get any solution to his problem and his work has been suffering. The complainant made a complaint No.5783327 to the Head Office of the OP at Mumbai on 30.08.2014 and then an Engineer visited his place who after examining the problem told him that there was no problem of network and the problem was with the device. The complainant was told to contact the service dealer to replace the device as it had manufacturing fault. The complainant approached the service dealer in Sector 34, Chandigarh who refused to change the device. The complainant sent e-mail dated 18.10.2014 and in reply to this, the complainant was informed through e-mail that the concerned department was ready to replace his device with new one. Accordingly, the complainant sent the required details through e-mail to the company on 03.11.2014. After this the complainant visited the service center to collect the device but the service dealer again refused to replace it. The complainant again sent e-mail to the company on 04.11.2014 and he received e-mail dated 05.11.2014 to again contact the dealer but the efforts of the complainant went in vain. Finally the OP informed the complainant that they would not provide him fresh data card (WI-FI Router device). With these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. None appeared for it. Therefore, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.08.2015.
3. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 and e-mail Ex.C-2.
4. We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the written arguments submitted by him.
5. The complainant purchased Airtel 4 GB Data Card Router Mf 29 and a SIM for 4 G Post Paid Airtel from M/s. Paras Sales Corporation, Chandigarh against retail invoice dated 11.04.2014 Ex.C-1 and paid a total sum of Rs.3,809/-. The OP was to provide telecommunication services to the complainant while the said connection was put to use. The total cost of the connection was Rs.4,000/- and the monthly rent is Rs.2300/-. Upon usage it was fond that the Wi-Fi router device has some manufacturing defect as it stopped working after 10-15 minutes when put to use. The complainant approached the local customer care centre to have solution to the problem which the Wi-Fi system was encountering while in operation. Upon complaint No. 5783327 dated 30.08.2014 to the head office of the OP, an engineer of the OP visited the place of the complainant and examined the problem. He identified the problem with the device and advised the complainant to get replaced the device. When the complainant approached to the Airtel Service Dealer in Sector 34 Chandigarh, it refused to change the device. Thereafter, the complainant approached the company through e-mail dated 18.10.2014 and the e-mail was positively replied to by the company assuring replacement of the defective device with the new one but till date no corrective measures have been taken by the OP and no fresh data card has been supplied to him. Therefore, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
6. Despite proper and effective service, non appearance of the OP show that it has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant.
7. In order to prove his case against the OP regarding sale and supply of defective WI FI Router Device amounting to unfair trade practice and further not replacing the defective device with the new one despite having given written assurance to replace the device, as per OPs e-mail dated 05.11.2014 Ex.C-2 (colly), amounts to deficiency in service on its part. The complainant has proved purchase of the device vide retail invoice dated 11.04.2014 Ex.C-1 and further the complaints by him and response by the OP regarding defective device and assurance of the OP to replace the same has been duly proved trough the exchange of e-mails (Ex.C-2) between the parties.
8. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted as the OP has chosen not to appear before the Forum despite proper and effective notice. Hence, the assertions made by the complainant are accepted as correct and the act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP is proved. The complaint, therefore, deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated for harassment, mental and financial loss suffered by him due to the acts of omission and commission by the OP.
9. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following direction to the OP:
(a) to replace to the defective device in question.
(b) to pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) as lump sum compensation for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
September 16, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
