Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/46/2015

B.Sekhara reddy, S/o. Late B.Narayana Redduy, aged 57 years. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director, Bharati Airtel, Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

P.Muni Reddy

10 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-16-10-2015                                                                                                               Order Date: -10-06-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

        FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.46/2015

Between

B.Sekhar Reddy, S/o. Late B. Narayana Reddy,

Hindu, Aged about 57 years,

3-2-30, Chambadi Street, TIRUPATI  517501,

Chittoor District, (AP).                                                         …. Complainant

 

And

1.Managing Director, Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

    Bharati Crescent, No.1 Nelson Mandela Road,

    Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

    NEW DELHI  110 070, India.

 

2. Regional Manager, Bharati Airtel Ltd.,                                

    Splendid Towers, SP Road, Begumpet,

    HYDERABAD 500 016, India.

 

3. Branch Manager, Bharati Airtel Office,

    K. T. Road, Tirupati  517 501,

   Chittoor District, (AP).                                                  …. Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 31.05.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri. P. Muni Reddy, counsel for the complainant and Sri. L. Madhusudhan Reddy counsel for the opposite party no.2 and opposite parties 1 &3 remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to refund an amount of Rs.341/- which was deducted by the opposite parties to provide 1GB internet connection and to pay Rs.34,100/- towards exemplary damages and Rs.7,050/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service rendered by the opposite parties     and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

         2. The brief facts of the case are: The complainant is the customer of the opposite parties 1to 3 mobile service and  he has been using the mobile service connection with consumer no. 7702636379 and in order to avail the internet connection, he called the customer care of the opposite parties i.e. Bharathi Airtel Limited on 11^th October at about 22.00 hours through customer care of the respondent company and immediately on the same day  they deducted Rs.196/- from the main balance of the complainant by promoting that the internet connection will activate within an hour. After one hour the complainant again called the customer care through interactive voice response to another employee of the opposite parties and as per their instruction he selected the option of internet package and again the opposite parties deducted Rs.145/- was deducted from the main balance of the mobile phone and the main balance showed nil balance.

        3. The complainant further submits that after deducting the above said amount the opposite parties failed to provide the internet connection. After receipt of the several calls made by the complainant to the customer care the opposite parties kept silent and failed to provide the internet connection as promised by them. Hence the complainant filed the present complainant. After receipt of the notices the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained absent and set exparte. The opposite party no.2 filed written version by denying the allegation made in the complaint and stated that their company is a reputed company having  crores of customers all over the Telangana and Andhra Pradesh  States and also contended that they have not received any complaint in the customer care from the complainant. If at all they have received any complaint they might have resolve the same. Hence there is no deficiency of service on part of them and also the complainant is not entitled for the damages and compensation as mentioned in the complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        4.  The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1 was marked on behalf of him. On behalf of the opposite party no.2 one Bipin Thomas S/o. V.T.Thomas working as Deputy General Manager (Head-Legal Regulatory) no documents were marked on behalf of them. Both the complainant and opposite party no.2 filed written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

       5.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties

                     towards the complainant?               

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                   what extent?            

             (iii)  To what Result?

         6. Point No:-(i).  There is no dispute regarding the usage of the sim card of the opposite parties by the complainant same was admitted by the opposite parties. As per the contentions of the complainant that he called the customer care to availed the internet connection and with the instructions of the customer care personnel only he opted the internet data connection and Rs.196/- was deducted from his main mobile balance and promised that the net access will be activate within one hour. But after lapse of one hour also the net was not activated in his mobile. Hence he called the customer care for the activation of the internet connection, again some other person received the call and answered through automatic answering system and Rs.145/- was deducted totally Rs.341/- was deducted for internet data. But they failed to activate the internet data to his phone despite of his repeated requests made by the complainant. Hence the complainant contended that the opposite parties did not render the service properly which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of them. But in the written version filed by the opposite party no.2 they have contended that the complainant never called their customer care to avail any internet connection and he never complained about the activation of internet data for his mobile and they never deducted Rs.341/- towards internet data and also contended that only in order to get wrongful gain he approached this Forum and prayed that this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant in order to prove his contention he got marked Ex.A1. In Ex.A1 it was mentioned the list of messages received by the complainant through his mobile on 11.10.2015 for activation of the internet data. But nowhere in the written version and affidavit filed by the opposite party denied that they have not collected Rs.341/- towards mobile data and simply denied that they never received any complaint from the complainant for the activation of the internet connection. Except the above contention the opposite parties failed to place any documentary proof that they have provided the internet data. Hence in the absence of any supportive evidence it cannot be considered. Hence the interest shown by the opposite parties while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering their service to the customers. That itself clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties towards the complainant. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.

            As already the opposite parties 1 and 3 remained exparte, the complaint allegations are deemed to be unchallenged the deficiency of service on part of them is proved.  

         7. Point(ii):-  Now what is the relief to which the complainant is entitled has to be seen. The undisputed fact remains that the complainant was paid Rs.341/- which was deducted by the opposite parties for the activation of 3G data and hence he is entitled for the same with reasonable rate of interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deduction i.e. 11.10.2015 till the date of realization. The complainant further claimed Rs.34,100/- towards exemplary damages and also Rs.17,050/- towards compensation for mental agony, but it is not made known and no where he is mentioned how he arrived the above said figure mentioned in the complaint.  At the same time, we cannot also permit the complainant to take advantage and have gain without actual proof of damage.  Hence, the compensation also should be higher than the normal damages.  In the above circumstances this forum feels that to grant a sum of Rs.3000/- is reasonable to discourage unfair trade practice.  Hence all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.3000/- towards damages and compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also he is entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the litigation expenses.  This point is answered accordingly.         

        8.Point (iii):-    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.341/- (rupees three hundred and forty one only) along with interest @ 9% per annum from 11.10.2015 which was collected by them towards 3G internet data from the complainant. The opposite parties further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation expenses. The opposite parties further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the compensation amount of Rs.3,000/- (rupees three thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 10^th day of June, 2016.

          Sd/-                                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                                                      

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1: B. Sekhara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

RW-1: Bipin Thomas (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

                 EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.

 

EXHIBITS (EX.A)	DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS
	Extract of Messages (Airtel). Dt: 11.10.2015.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

-NIL-

 

     Sd/-

President

 

 

                                                              // TRUE COPY //

                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                   The Opposite parties.