Complainant Rajan Kumar has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to call on the opposite parties for causing harassment and financial loss to him for stealing confidential personal data without his knowledge and charge penalty of Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties and to pay him for harassment and stolen of I.D. proof without knowledge and information.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is running the cable connection of Airtel T.V. Company vides I.D.No.3026003769 and the company is functioning under the title of Airtel Digital T.V.Global Enterprises Sangalpura Road, Gurdaspur. Dish connection was installed by Mr.Dharminder Nath opposite party no.2 who is the employee of opposite party no.1 who is resident of village Purowal Jattan, Tehsil and Distt.Gurdaspur. It was next pleaded that the abovesaid individual has hacked his ID proof available with opposite party no.1 and started harassing him financially due to change of various T.V. package without his knowledge and information. He actually running the package of Rs.324/- per month but the opposite party no.2 has changed his package as under:-
(i) That on 3rd April, 2021 the opposite parties changed the package to Rs.409/- per month.
ii) That on 17th April, 2021 the opposite parties changed and added 05 worth Rs.473/- Rs.362/- Rs.629/-, Rs.269/- and Rs.958/-(Total amounting to Rs.2691).
iii) That again on 17th April, 2021 at 6.25 P.M. the opposite parties again changed and added another package worth Rs.1643/-.
iv) That on 19.04.2021 again the opposite parties changed and added Rs.522/-.
That the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued to him against the opposite parties refused to admit his legal and genuine claim. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written reply taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and concealed the material facts; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; Actually the opposite party no.1 is a firm and deals with distribution of items of Airtel like Airtel Dish TV, Dish Antina, wiring and other equipments receiver, remote etc. which are necessary for the installation of Airtel dish TV, except this no other service is being provided by opposite party no.1 to its customers; if any person/customer purchases Airtel Dish, then the opposite party no.1 only provides the connection facility/Airtel Dish Antina and other equipments which are essential for the connection of the Airtel Dish TV. Moreover Airtel Company is having electronic app by the name of "M.Boss", which has been given by the Airtel company to its freelancers mean to say that freelancers are those persons, who are working for Airtel Company and having direct link with the Airtel Company and Airtel company provide them the commission for the services rendered by them. It was next pleaded that opposite party no.2 is neither the employee of opposite party no.1 nor there is any record which proves that the opposite party no.2 is employee of opposite party No.1. The opposite party no.1 is only to provide material to the customers, who used to purchase new Airtel Dish TV connection and in case of freelancer approach for the material for connection of new Airtel Dish TV, the company used to provide code number for the installation/activation of new Dish TV connection and after verifying the code given by the freelancers with the help of "M.Boss" App and only then the material is being provided to them. On merits, it was submitted that no cause of action arisen in favour of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party, as the complainant never approached the opposite party at any point of time with his any kind of grievances. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Opposite party no.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply submitted that the opposite party is doing private work. Opposite party no.2 have no concern with opposite party no.1 and he is not employee of the opposite party no.1. Actually, the opposite party has no power that he can hacked the ID proof of the complainant.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement filed.
6. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.
7. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of complainant and opposite party no.1.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsels for the parties; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
9. The present complaint is filed by the complainant regarding causing harassment and financial loss due to change of TV packages without his knowledge time and again by opposite party no.2, an employee of opposite party no.1 It was alleged by the complainant that he is running a cable connection of Airtel TV Company which was installed by opposite party no.2. Originally he was having a package of Rs.324/- per month but from 3.4.2021 to 19.4.2021 it has been changed four times by opposite party no.2 by hacking in ID proof (Ex.C-1 to C-4).
10. Opposite party no.2 in their written statement denied all the allegations and stated that he has no such power to hack the account and to change the package etc. Further he has pleaded that he is doing the private work and having no concern with opposite party no.1.
11. Opposite party no.1 in their written statement stated that opposite party no.2 was not their employee and the change of package and change of amount is none of their business. They deal only with distribution of items of Dish TV etc. and other activities are done through electric App 'M.Boss' by the customers itself with the help of freelancer of the company. It has also been mentioned that opposite party no.2 was working as freelancer of the Airtel Company.
12. Ld.counsel for opposite party no.2 argued that all the allegations are baseless and pointed out that all these packages may have been changed by complainant himself, as these cannot be changed without OTP which was available with the complainant only.
13. From the above details and facts of the case, we see that as per Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4, the package of the complainant have been changed time and again for more than four times, but at the same time it is not possible without the consent of the complainant.
14. We do agree to the statement and oral argument of opposite party no.1 that they are not directly concerned with this change of packages etc. as they are the distributors of the items only and other services are rendered by the freelancer of the company through a app 'M.Boss'. It is further pleaded that opposite party no.2 was not working with them but he was working as freelancer of the Airtel company.
15. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the change of package of Airtel TV connection is directly concerned with the company itself, although it might have been done through their freelancer working on their behalf. The complainant has paid to the Airtel Company to get the package. Hence Airtel Company is liable for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, if any.
But the complainant has not arrayed the Airtel Company as opposite party in this present case.
Hence the present complaint is hereby disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs.
16. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases.
17. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned to the record room.
(Kiranjit Kaur Arora)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
March 22, 2023 Member
*MK*
