Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/868/2016

Mr. Tushant Deep Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Idea Cellular Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Kunal Garg

12 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/868/2016
Date of Institution	:	27/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	12/10/2017

 

Mr. Tushant Deep Garg, Advocate r/o #1088, Sector 4, Panchkula.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Idea Cellular Limited, through its Incharge/Authorised Signatory, SCO No.495-496, 2^nd Floor, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh 160036.

2.     Customer Care Centre, Idea Cellular Limited, through its Incharge/Authorised Signatory, #C-105, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali-160055 (Pb.)

3.     Mr. Gaurav Authorised Representative, SCO No.495-496, 2^nd Floor, Sector 36-C, Chandigarh 160036. [Deleted vide order dated 24.1.2017]

……Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

 

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Kunal Garg, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Rameet Bakshi, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2.
	:	OP-3 deleted.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that in the first week of July, 2016, the complainant, a legal practitioner, was approached by the representative of OPs to get his mobile ported from Airtel to Idea. The complainant was assured of providing 3G internet services with unlimited call covering Haryana, Punjab, J&K, Himachal and NCR without roaming at a monthly rent of Rs.350/-. Accordingly, the complainant ported his mobile and the same started working in the first week of July.  However, from the very beginning the complainant faced problems viz. total failure of connectivity, no signal in the court complex and residence and 2G internet services instead of 3G.  The complainant made several verbal and written complaints to the OPs, but, all in vain. In the first week of September, the OPs barred the outgoing calls on the complainant’s mobile and on 18.9.2016, he received a bill from the OPs for a sum of Rs.870/-. As per the complainant, he is not liable to pay for the services which he never availed and the bill was issued just to harass him. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         OPs 1 & 2 in their joint written reply have admitted that the complainant became their customer by porting.  At the time of porting, the complainant agreed to abide by the terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse of the Customer Application Form (CAF). It has been denied that from the very beginning the complainant faced the alleged problems.  It has also been denied that the OPs without informing the complainant barred the outgoing calls on his mobile.  It has been stated that the number of the complainant was barred selectively on 7.9.2016, temporarily disconnected on 22.9.2016 and permanently disconnected on 22.11.2016 due to non-payment of outstanding dues totaling Rs.951/-. It has further been denied that the bill was wrongly issued to the complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The claim against OP-3 was given up by the complainant, therefore, the name of OP-3 was deleted from the array of OPs vide order dated 24.1.2017.
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written reply of the OPs.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
7.         The case of the complainant is that he ported his mobile connection from Airtle to Idea i.e. the OPs which started working in the first week of July, but, he was facing problems due to failure of connectivity and internet services of 2G instead of 3G.  The grouse of the complainant is that the OPs barred the outgoing calls on his mobile and on 18.9.2016, he received a bill from the OPs for a sum of Rs.870/- which is illegal despite an email from the complainant’s side for disconnecting the connectivity due to poor internet services which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8.         The stand taken by OPs 1 & 2 is that at the time of porting, the complainant agreed to the terms and conditions mentioned on the customer application form and there was no problem in the beginning.  It has further been contended that the number of the complainant was barred selectively on 7.9.2016, temporarily disconnected on 22.9.2016 and thereafter permanently disconnected on 22.11.2016 due to non-payment of the outstanding dues totaling to Rs.951/-.
9.         Perusal of documents on record reveals that Annexure C-1 is copy of the SMSs sent by OPs to the complainant on 4.8.2016 and 9.8.2016.  In these messages firstly on 4.8.2016, the OPs registered the complaint and promised to take action on the same by 9.8.2016.  On 9.8.2016, the OPs themselves conveyed to the complainant that his concern on coverage could not be resolved at that moment and they also regretted for the inconvenience. Annexure C-2 is copy of email dated 11.8.2016 regarding the grievance of the complainant for inappropriate working of the connectivity of connection given by the OPs and non-working of 3G internet data as per the package. In this email, the complainant requested the OPs to discontinue their services with immediate effect and to port his number with some other service provider. It was also specifically mentioned in the email that he was not liable to pay any bill raised from their side on account of the disputed number and he requested to stop their services immediately so that no further issue arises between the parties. But, even after this email exchange, the OPs raised one bill (Annexure C-3) for Rs.870.93 in the name of the complainant.  OPs 1 & 2 in para 10 of their reply have taken a stand that the network team of the company visited the residential locality of the complainant on 5.8.2016 and duly carried out the inspections and it was found out that the network coverage of their company in the said area was optimum and no such problem was there in the said locality with respect to the network coverage.  However, their own SMS dated 9.8.2016 is contradictory to the same showing their regret for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and they also mentioned in the aforesaid SMS that the concern of the complainant on coverage could not be resolved.  Pertinently, there is no SMS/email on record informing the complainant with regard to the disconnection by the OPs. Hence, the act of the OPs in taking a contradictory stand during the proceedings of the present case, non-intimating the complainant regarding the disconnection of the outgoing calls and later finally disconnecting the services amounts to deficiency in service on their part which caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
10.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to him.
2. To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(ii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
12/10/2017	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member