BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.473 of 2014
Date of institution: 17.07.2014
Date of Decision: 19.03.2015
Rajinder Singh son of Lakhveer Singh, resident of House No.2527, Sector 69, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh through its Manager, 4-G Customer Care Department.
2. Bharti Airtel Ltd., Regd. Office at Bharti Cresent, 1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi -110070 through its Manager, 4-G, Customer Care Department.
3. Airtel Relationship Centre, SCO 56, Phase-3B2, Mohali (Punjab).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OPs ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The case of the complainants is that he purchased Airtel 4-G Dongal from the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) for Rs.1,200/- on 04.04.2014 with monthly plan of Rs.1,125/- in which 10 GB Break Free data at 4-G speed was taken by the complainant to be used at his office. At that time the officials of the OPs assured the complainant that the 4-G internet connection provided by them would work perfectly as per the requirements of the complainant. However, the internet connection worked fine for few days and then stopped working in May, 2014. On complaint, the officials of the OPs visited the office of the complainant and rectified the problem. The internet connection again stopped working in June, 2014 and the complainant made a complaint with the customer care of the OPs on 24.06.2014 and one Hoshiar Singh an officials of the visited the office of the complainant on 25.06.2014 and found that the internet is not working as the signal of the OPs has become weak. The complainant requested the customer care to rectify the problem or replace the dognal which was within warranty. However, the officials of the OPs flatly refused to replace the dongal and asked the complainant and they cannot do anything about it as the signal of the OPs in the area had become weak. Thereafter, the complainant visited the OPs number of times but they are dilly dallying the matter on one pretext or the other.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to rectify the problem with 4-G internet Dongal or refund him its price of Rs.1,200/- with interest from the date of purchase and pay him compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment and mental agony.
2. OP No.3 was absent despite service and none having appeared for it despite repeated calls, it was proceeded against exparte on 02.12.2014.
3. Summons sent to OP Nos. 1 and 2 were not received back served or unserved. Presuming their due service and none having appeared for them, these were also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.01.2015.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 and C-2.
5. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, the OPs were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence of the complainant.
6. We have heard the complainant. However, he did not file any written arguments.
7. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the services of the OPs by purchasing a Dongal internet connection for Rs.1,200/- on 04.04.2012 vide Ex.C-1. However, the internet connection stopped functioning in May, 2014 and on complaint by the complainant the officials of the OPs rectified the problem. However, in June, 2014 the internet connection again stopped working and on the complaint of the complainant the official of the OPs informed the complainant that their signal in the area of the complainant has become weak. Then the complainant requested the OPs to replace the Dongal internet connection which was not done by the OPs. Thus, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
8. An ample opportunity of natural justice was given to the OPs but none appeared on their behalf. This shows that the OPs have deliberately not appeared before this Forum to rebut the pleadings and evidence of the complainant and, therefore, were proceeded against ex-parte. This absence on the part of the OPs is nothing but an admission from their own side as has been held by the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in K.D. Ajay Khosh Vs. M/s. Alliance Habitat, CLT 2013 (2) 389. By considering the facts, circumstances and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant alongwith his affidavit, this Forum is of the view that the act of the OPs is nothing but an act of deficiency in service in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Their non appearance in this Forum only shows that they have nothing to say.
8. Therefore, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) to replace the Dongal internet connection of the complainant with a new one to the satisfaction of the complainant.
OR
in the alternative to refund the price of the Dongal i.e. Rs.1,200/- (Rs. One thousand two hundred only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase of connection till actual payment.
(b) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
The OPs are directed to comply with the above directions within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 19, 2015
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
