Haryana

StateCommission

A/1411/2017

BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DR. HIMANSHU ANAND AND ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

AMIT GUPTA

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:22.11.2017

                Date of final hearing:30.09.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement:27.12.2022

 

First Appeal No.1411 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

1.      Regional Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot No.21, I.T City, Chandigarh.

2.      Managing Director, Bharti Crecent-I, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi.

.….Appellants.

Through Mr. Vineet Mittal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Pushpal Chauhan, A.M. (Legal).

Versus

 

1.    Dr. Himanshu Anand son of P.N. Anand, R/o Anand Orthopedic Centre, Opposite Theme Park, Pehowa Road, Kurukshetra.

….Respondent No.1

Through Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate

 

2.    Brand Reality Communication, Authorized Collection, Agent, Airtel Mobile Services, Sector-17, Kurukshetra, through its Manager.

….Respondent No.2 (Proforma Respondent)

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Vineet Mittal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Pushpal Chauhan, A.M. (Legal).counsel for the appellants.

                   Mr. Satpal Dhamija, counsel for respondent No.1.

                   (Service of respondent No.2 already dispensed with).

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

           Appellants-opposite parties No.2 & 3 have preferred this appeal against the order dated 03.10.2017, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kurukshetra (In short “District Commission”), vide which complaint filed by the complainant-respondent No.1 was allowed and had directed the opposite parties (‘OPs’) as under:-

“to restore the mobile connection of the complainant including the incoming and outgoing calls bearing No.9896038302 within a period of 15 days, failing which penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite parties.”

 

2.                The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was consumer of Ops  with a post paid cell phone connection and has been making payment of bills regularly. On 11.03.2017, he went to USA to attend some medical conference from 11.03.2017 to 19.03.2017 and contacted to OP No.1 for provoding him requisite facilities for international roaming and for mobile data to be used while his stay in USA.  OP No.1 offered a package of Rs.2900/- for international roaming and mobile data for the period outside India for the period 11.03.2017 to 19.03.2017, agreeing upon which, he was also assured that no further charges shall be payable by him to the Ops except the package charges of Rs.2900/-. However despite all assurance to the contrary that the bill dated 09.04.2017 was issued by Ops amounting to Rs.85,447.07 paisa for the period 01.03.2017 to 07.04.2017. It was further alleged that no details of the charges levied in the impugned bill were mentioned, whereas the complainant had already obtained package scheme of Rs.2900/- for that period and further the fact that Ops never got any consent from complainant to increase or extend the limit of package amount. Thereafter, complainant also requested the Ops to rectify the bill, but they refused to do so and even refused to provide necessary services to the said mobile connection and finally deactivated the same. Thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of Ops, hence the complaint.

3.                Notice of the complaint was issued to OPs, but despite due service none had appeared on behalf of OPs and were thus proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.06.2017.

4.               After hearing the complainant, learned District Commission, Kurkshetra allowed the complaint vide order dated 03.10.2017 as mentioned above.

5.               Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellants-Ops No.2 & 3 have preferred this appeal.

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh.Vineet Mittal Advocate alongwith Mr. Pushpal Chauhan, AM (Legal) learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sh.Satpal Dhamija, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. With their kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is not disputed that on 11.03.2017, complainant went to USA to attend the medical conference from 11.03.2017 to 19.03.2017.  It is also not disputed that OP No.1 offered a package for international roaming and mobile data of Rs.2900/- for the above stated duration outside India from 11.03.2017 to 19.03.2017. The plea of the complainant was that bill dated 09.04.2017 issued by OPs amounting to Rs.85,447.07 paisa was wrong and illegal for the period 01.03.2017 to 07.04.2017 and OPs wrongly disconnected the connection. The plea of the respondent was that the bill issued by the OPs amounting to Rs.85,447.07/- paisa was in accordance with the plan opted by the complainant.  Perusal of Annexure A-3 of the appellate file shows that complainant obtained one time charges for discounted data + voice lr pack for use, Canada @ 2999 for 10 days, and being that so, why the opposite party has issued bill amount of Rs.85447.07 to the complainant. Since the complainant has opted one time charges for international roaming and mobile data for ten days, how and why OPs issued the illegal bill to the complainant. Infact if complainant used to consume more date while his stay abroad more than what was permitted under the pack availed by him, then appellant cellular service provider should have asked him to extend the limit of this package for providing him uninterrupted use of data.  The OPs should have stopped the plan after 19.03.2017. Moreover OPs should not have disconnected the connection of the complainant who is a person of repute. The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant endorsing that  connection of the complainant is restored within 15 days including incoming and outgoing calls. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 03.10.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

8.                Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

9.                A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

10.              File be consigned to record room.

 

27th  December, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)