Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/271/2019

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dinesh Anand - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjiv Pabbi Adv.

28 Feb 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/271/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	14/11/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	28/02/2022

 

 

 

 

 

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110070.

 

2.     Branch Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, having its Office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh-160101, through its Authorized Signatory.

….Appellants

Vs.

 

Dinesh Anand S/o Late Sh. B.C. Anand, Resident of House No. 240, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI   PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the Appellants.
	:	Sh. S.M. Wadhera, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/301/2019
Date  of  Institution	:	09/12/2019
Date   of   Decision	:	28/02/2022

 

 

 

 

 

Dinesh Anand S/o Late Sh. B.C. Anand, Resident of House No. 240, Mansa Devi Complex, Sector 4, Panchkula (Haryana).

….Appellant

Vs.

 

 

1.     Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, having its Regd. Office at Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi – 110070.

 

2.     Branch Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, having its Office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh-160101.

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI   PRESIDENT

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY                   MEMBER

 

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. S.M. Wadhera, Advocate for the Appellant.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for the Respondents.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

 

1.         This order shall dispose of two appeals i.e. A/271/2019 filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr.) and Cross Appeal i.e. A/301/2019 filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Dinesh Anand), against the order dated 23.08.2019, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (now, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh), vide which it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No. CC/446/2018, filed by the Complainant/Respondent (Dinesh Anand), qua Appellants/Opposite Parties (Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr.), by passing the following order: -

“8.     For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]      To withdraw the charges of Rs.2,23,175.76P forthwith and to issue a fresh bill to the Complainant not exceeding his max. credit limit i.e. Rs.70,000/- with immediate effect and after payment of the revised bill, to restore the service on the number of the Complainant as well on the other connected numbers which have been used by the family of the Complainant.

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]   To also pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

9.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of the directions mentioned in sub-para [a] above.” 

 

 

2.          Since, the issues involved in the above-said cases, except minor variations, here and there, of law and facts are the same, as such, we are of the considered opinion that these appeals can be adjudicated by passing a consolidated order.

 

3.         Before the District Commission-I, it was the case of the Respondent/Complainant that he opted the telecom services of Appellant No.1/Opposite Party No.1 since 10 years back by taking a postpaid mobile connection No.9815077934. Apart from the said number, the Respondent/ Complainant had availed other four postpaid numbers for the use of his family members and all the said connections are connected under one tariff plan. As per the tariff plan opted by the Respondent/Complainant he has to pay monthly rental of Rs.2,999/- excluding other service taxes, but the said tariff did not include the facility of International Roaming. In the said tariff plan, Appellant No.1/Opposite Party No.1 had offered the calling facility as well as Internet facility by fixing a credit limit of Rs.70,000/-.  The Respondent/Complainant has been running his own travel agency for earning his livelihood. In the month of May 2018, the Respondent/ Complainant planned for travelling to Uzbekistan to attend some business meeting with his Uzbekistan based client. Accordingly, he contacted the Customer Care of Appellant No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 and asked for the different tariffs/ plans for Uzbekistan.  After going through the various plans, the Respondent/Complainant asked the Customer Care of Appellant No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 to activate the Base Plan for international roaming for a monthly rental of Rs.149/-. The Respondent/ Complainant travelled to Uzbekistan on 08.06.2018. During his trip to Uzbekistan the Respondent/ Complainant had used the services of Appellant No.1/ Opposite Party No.1 with the help of their network partner by making outgoing calls and also made some overseas calls and SMS total amounting to Rs.2,120/- (Approx. Rs.2200/-) and except the said service no other services had ever been availed by the Respondent/ Complainant during his foreign trip. The Respondent/ Complainant got shocked when suddenly his number had been blocked by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties on 05.09.2018 without assigning any reason. Immediately, the Respondent/Complainant contacted the Appellants/Opposite Parties, through his wife, to know the reasons for the blockage of number. Only at that point of time, Appellants/ Opposite Parties informed that the number in question had been blocked as the same had crossed the credit limit of Rs.70,000/- and by that time bill of Rs.2,23,294.66 had already been raised by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties which includes the service tax of Rs.34,043.76 and Rs.1,84,080/- on account of usage qua the internet, calling facility and SMS facility. Thereafter, the wife of the Respondent/Complainant requested the Appellants/Opposite Parties to unblock the number at the earliest in order to avoid any complication in the Respondent’s/Complainant’s Uzbekistan trip. The Respondent/Complainant returned back to India on 12.06.2018 and contacted number of times with the Customer Care of Appellant No.1/Opposite Party No.1 by raising his grievance as to why huge amount of bill had been raised by them, but of no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Opposite Parties.
4.         In the reply filed before the District Forum-I (now District Commission-I), while admitting the factual matrix of the case, the Appellants/Opposite Parties pleaded that their billing system was fully computerized and does not involve any human intervention. The Respondent/Complainant had been charged for the usage. The billing happens in the computerized billing system of the Company only when a voice service/SMS/VAS was used by the customer. The Respondent/Complainant was thus rightly charged as per usage made while on international roaming and he was bound to make the payment as per the said usage. The Appellants/ Opposite Parties were well within their rights to disconnect the services for non-payment of outstanding dues. It has been asserted that the credit limit was set on the basis of Customer’s age on network, the payment pattern etc. and was just an indicator of monthly usage. Usage of the services beyond credit limit does not entitle the subscriber to forego the legitimate charges payable to the Company. The subscriber shall always be responsible to pay for all the calls made and services obtained even beyond the credit limit. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Appellants/ Opposite Parties prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.
5.         On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh partly accepted the Complaint and issued directions to the Appellants/ Opposite Parties (Bharti Airtel Limited) as noticed in the opening para of this order.  
6.         Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh, the instant Appeals have been filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties (Bharti Airtel Limited) as well as by the Appellant/Complainant (Dinesh Anand).
7.         We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care, along with the written arguments advanced on behalf of both the sides.
8.         Per material available on record, it is evident that mobile connection no. 9815077934 had been obtained by the Respondent/Complainant from the Appellant Company (Bharti Airtel Limited). Apart from the said number, the Respondent/Complainant had availed other four postpaid numbers for the use of his family members and all the said connections are connected under one tariff plan with the credit limit of Rs.70,000/-. The Respondent/Complainant has been running his own Travel Agency for earning his livelihood. In the month of May, 2018, the Respondent/Complainant planned for travelling to Uzbekistan and to enable him to use his mobile number in Uzbekistan, the Respondent/ Complainant opted for an international roaming at a monthly rental of Rs.149/-. The grouse of the Respondent/Complainant was that the Appellants/ Opposite Parties raised a bill of Rs.2,23,294.66P which includes the service tax of Rs.34,043.76P and Rs.1,84,080/- on account of usage qua the internet, calling facility and SMS facility. However, as against it, the Appellants/Opposite Parties duly submitted the itemized bills, wherein the charges as per the usage made while on international roaming has been duly reflected. It is the case of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties that the credit limit is set on the basis of Customer’s age on network, the payment pattern etc. and is just an indicator of monthly usage. To our mind, usage of the services beyond credit limit does not entitle the subscriber to forego the legitimate charges as per the bill generated by the Company. The record further shows, the Respondent/ Complainant was duly sent usage alert by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties vide Annexure C-4 for all the usage and the billing amount, but still the Respondent/ Complainant continued to use the services and did not make any request for stopping the same. The itemized bill reflected a total amount of Rs.2,23,294.66 which included the services tax of Rs.34,043.76 and Rs.1,84,080/- on account of usage qua the internet. So, on the basis of the record placed before us, we can safely conclude that the impugned order dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Ld. District Commission-I partly allowing the Complaint of the Respondent/Complainant (Sh.Dinesh Anand) by issuing the directions to the Appellants/Opposite Parties to withdraw the charges of Rs.2,23,175.76P and to issue a fresh bill not exceeding his max. credit limit i.e. Rs.70,000/- and after payment of the revised bill, to restore the service on the number of the Respondent/ Complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses deserves to be set-aside in toto and  as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants/ Opposite Parties and the Respondent/Complainant is bound to pay for services rendered by the Appellants/Opposite Parties on billing statement as raised.
9.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.
10.         In our considered opinion, Ld. District Commission-I fell into a grave error in partly allowing the complaint against Appellants/Opposite Parties, and as such, needs interference of this Commission. 
11.     For the reasons recorded above, appeal bearing No.271 of 2019 filed by Appellants/Opposite Parties, is allowed, with no order as to cost. The order of the Ld. District Commission-I is set aside.
12.         Now coming to the cross appeal bearing No.301 of 2019 filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Dinesh Anand), it may be stated here that it was upon the Complainant how to use his mobile data or internet or internet while abroad but he on his own extensively used the data for his comfort and also crossed the credit limit and thus, the Opposite Parties/Respondents are not at any fault and rightly raised the bill. Apparently, the Appellant/ Complainant had used the services and as per Annexure C-4, the usage alert was also sent to him, but he chose to continue with the services and never opted to make any request to stop the same. The Appellant/Complainant was thus aptly charged as per usage made while on international roaming and he is bound to make the payment as per the said usage.     Under above circumstances, even on merits, no case is made out, in favour of the Appellant/Complainant. Consequently, the appeal bearing No.301 of 2019, filed by the Appellant/Complainant (Sh.Dinesh Anand) is lame of strength and therefore, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.
13.         Certified copy of this order be placed in Cross Appeal No.301 of 2019.
14.         All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.
15.         Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

28^th February, 2022                                                    Sd/-        

                                                (RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                        (PADMA PANDEY)

MEMBER

“Dutt”