Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/940

M/S BHARATHI AIRTEL LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR C SYED FAIZEL - Opp.Party(s)

C S RAJMOHAN

03 May 2018

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.940/15

 

JUDGMENT DATED:03.05.2018

 

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. V.V.JOSE                                                          : MEMBER

SHRI. RANJIT. R                                                         : MEMBER

M/s Bharati Airtel Limited,

Circle Office, SL Avenue, N.H.By pass,

Kundannur Junction,

Maradu.P.O, Cochin District.                                           : APPELLANT

R/by its authorized signatory,

Senior Manager,Legal and Regulatory,

Rekha Agarwal.

           

(By Adv: Sri. R. Chandra Praveen & C.S. Rajmohan)                                                                                              

            Vs.

Dr. C. Syed Faizel, S/o C.A. Mohammed,

Kizhakkethottiyil, Parambil Peediaka P.O,                  : RESPONDENT

Malappuram District-676 315.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Abhishek R.V & Mohanan Nair.G)

78503207062.  

JUDGMENT

SHRI. RANJIT.R : MEMBER

Appeal is filed against the order dated:5.8.2015 in CC.197/15 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram  (for short District Forum).  District Forum directed the appellant/opposite party to provide bill for    the    complainant  according   to the service   package as   offered  and to reinstate the mobile connection without any charge and direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant, failing which opposite party shall pay 6% interest upon the above amount from the date of pronouncing of the order.  Short facts of the complaint is that:-

2.      The complainant was having an Airtel post paid connection in 2006.  On 31.3.2014 an international roaming facility of service package of Rs.786/- namely IR-786 Saudi Pack was obtained in his mobile number.  The offer of the opposite party was that the complainant would be provided incoming calls at Rs.5/- per minute, and outgoing calls at 15 paise per minute along with other facilities.  On 2.4.2014 complainant went to Saudi Arabia, roaming facility was used by him and first bill was generated on 6.4.2014 wherein the demanded amount was Rs.2118.57 which was excess than the offer.  Since the complainant protested the above amount was revised by the opposite party to Rs.1649.79.   In the month of May 2014 another bill of Rs.11959/- was served to the complainant.  He again made complaint with the opposite party.  They contended that the package facility was for one particular service provider and there existed more than one service provider in Saudi Arabia and that availment of service of various service providers would attract variable charges.  Thereafter his connection was disconnected.

3.      Opposite party was set exparte. 

4.      Evidence in this case consisted of chief affidavit of the complainant and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the complainant.  No contra evidence was adduced by the opposite party.

5.      District Forum appreciating the materials provided concluded that the opposite party shall provide the bill to the complainant according to the service package as offered, and the opposite party shall reinstate the mobile without any charge and that opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.6000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2000/-.  Aggrieved by this order opposite parties have filed this appeal.

6.      Heard both sides.

7.      The counsel for the appellant has raised a contention that though notice was served to the appellant herein, due to some unforeseen mishap at lawyers office with regard to the posting date, the appellant was called absent and set exparte.  We do not find merit in the submission of the counsel for the appellant that there happened some unforeseen mishap at the lawyers office regarding the posting date.  Moreover this submission made by the appellant lacks bonafides.  This alone would not constitute sufficient ground for the appeal.  The appellant herein being a big corporate should be more vigilant in prosecuting the case.

8.      The other contention put forward by the appellant that the Forum below did not gave due importance to Ext.A8 ie reply notice, sent by the appellant.  In the reply notice the details of roaming pack IR-786 such as its facility, the way of usage of roaming pack at Saudi Arabia, service provider that to be chosen before using the roaming pack, and that there existed more than one service provider in Saudi Arabia and the availment of service of various service providers would attract variable charges, were made mentioned.

9.      We find that these aspects were not looked into by the District Forum even though Ext.A8 reply notice is relied upon by the complainant.

10.    District Forum before considering whether there was any violation of usage of the roaming pack or not, by the complainant setaside the bill for Rs.11959/- and ordered the opposite party to reinstate the mobile connection without any charge.

11.    Considering the above facts we are of the view that, to determine the complaint on merits, set aside the impugned order is called for and an opportunity has to be given to the opposite parties to contest the case by adducing evidence so as to meet natural justice.  But the complainant cannot be fastened with liability for the laches on the part of the appellant/opposite party in prosecuting their case.

12.    Remand of the case, setting aside the order of District Forum can be ordered only on terms directing the appellant to compensate the injury sustained to the respondent/complainant.   The appellant have to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent/complainant as condition precedent for setting aside the order and to remand the case.  Cost ordered has to be paid to the respondent/complainant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order and receipt of the same has to be produced before the commission.  Default of payment of cost will result in dismissal of the appeal.  For report of deposit, posted  on 29.5.2018.

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.

22.06.2018

          Appellant paid the cost of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent as directed by the Commission and filed memo.  Appeal is allowed and the case is remanded back to the lower Forum for fresh disposal, with direction to permit the appellant/opposite party to file version, give evidence and contest the complaint on merit.  Endeavour shall be made by the lower forum to dispose of the complaint as expeditiously as possible.

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT. R : MEMBER

 

VL.