Tripura

West Tripura

CC/32/2016

Shri Sukhbir Singh (Assistant Executive Engineer) - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr. Ratan Das & 2 others. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.A.K. Sarkar

04 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  32 of 2016 

Sri Sukhbir Singh,
(Assistant Executive Engineer),
S/O- Sri Ajaib Singh,
HQ CE (P) Setuk, Lichu Bagan,
Agartala, Tripura West.            ..…..…...Complainant.

           VERSUS

1. Mr. Ratan Das,
Airtel Express,
40 AK Road, Mantribari Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. Mr. Suraj 
Airtel Express,
40, AK Road, Mantribari Road,
Agartala, West Tripura.

3. Bharati Airtel Limited,
Plot No.16,
Udyog Vihar, Phase -IV, 
Gurgaon- 122 015.     ..........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Sri Kishore Kr. Paul,
                          Sri Arun Kr. Sarkar,
                          Sri Bimal Kanti Nath,
                          Advocates.

For the O.P.                  : Sri Pranabashis Majumdar,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  04.11.2016

J U D G M E N T
    This case arises on the complainant filed by one Sukhbir Singh  U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact of the case in short is that the complainant purchased 'Airtel' Sim under a scheme. O.P. No.1, Ratan Das supplied the sim after taking Rs.250/- for activation. O.P. No.1, Ratan Das along with O.P. No.2 Mr. Suraj  of Airtel  Express visited the office of the complainant and provided the new sim. O.P. No.2  Mr. Suraj told him that the post package policy for Rs.1,000/- was available and ISD call for Rs.240 minutes can be availed as free call on payment of Rs.1000/-. Petitioner agreed and signed in the necessary forms. But in the month of March O.P. No.3 Airtel  asked the complainant to pay Rs.9382/- as outstanding bill for the period of February to March, 2016. Petitioner was surprised and objected to it. He stated that he did not call to USA / Canada but bill is given violating the scheme. But the Airtel company pressurized him to pay the outstanding amount. He considered it as deficiency of service practicing fraud so he filed this case for getting relief. 
2.         O.P. No.1 and 2, Ratan Das and Airtel Express and Mr. Suraj did not appear to contest the case.

3.         O.P. No.3, Bharati Airtel contested the case and filed the Written Statement. In the W.S. it is specifically stated that O.P. No.1 and 2 never given any proposal for free call of 240 minutes to Australia. Complainant opted for 250 minutes ISD call on the monthly rent Rs.999/-. He made ISD call in different area and his outstanding bill rent was Rs.7197/-. The matter could have been decided through arbitration as per Indian Telegraph Act. The matter could not be agitated before this Forum and liable to be dismissed. 

4.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether this case before the Forum is maintainable?
        (II) Whether there was any deficiency of service by O.Ps and petitioner, therefore, is entitled to get compensation and relief as claimed?

5.         Petitioner produced bill copy and also submitted the statement on affidavit.
    
6.        O.P. on the other hand produced application form and other papers and statement on affidavit of one Monojit Sarma.
    
7.        We have gone through the documents as filed by both the parties and also statement on affidavit. 
8.        On the basis of all these evidence we shall now determine the above points.

    Findings and decision:
9.        There is no denying  the fact that the dispute between  the complainant and O.P. could have been settled through arbitration. But nobody approached for settlement through arbitration. Section -3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeks to provide remedy in super session of other Acts unless there is clear bar for better protection and interest of the consumers. This additional remedy is available. It is not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force. This view is laid down by our Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal 1992-98 dated 1st December 2003. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court we are of the opinion that this court has jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The point No. 1 is decided accordingly. 
            Point No2:
10.        From the perusal of the record and the application form it is clear that the petition entered into the tariff plan 999. As per terms of that My Plan 50 calls of duration 5 minutes total 250 minutes was free on payment of 999 as rent. The statement of the petitioner that free call was 240 number is not true as per My Plan form. The area of ISD call not mentioned. Petitioner was given liberty to call at Australia or other countries. Total 50 calls duration 5 minutes each on payment of 999 was available. We find no ambiguity at this point. Petitioner produced some bills. We have gone through the bills produced by the petitioner. It is found that 1st bill was for Rs.1740 with taxes Rs. 205. If more than 50 call is made then definitely petitioner will have to pay more than 999. This bill is for the period 8th march to 7th April 2016. Another bill is for the period 6th January to 7th February. Month's charge was 703/-. It appears that on that month call was lesser than 50. Disputed bill is for the period 8th February to 7th March. This period Rs.5463/- was charged. Call charges was Rs.3549/-. Airtel is to give justification for  charging this huge amount in this month of February/ March. They are to establish that the ISD call in this month was more than 50 with duration more than 5 minutes. O.P. in the W.S or in the evidence failed to produce before us any definite data to support that the petitioner call period was more than 250 minutes and call was more than 50 nos. in this period. Some bill call details are given(photocopy). In those call details nothing show to support that call duration was more than 5 minutes and call number were more than 50. USA/UK is are not in the power pack. Petitioner called in Australia where his son and relatives were staying. But ISD call was shown to USA /UK. That might to be diverted Australia thereafter. For that reason call rate might to be higher but it is not also not clear before us. It is not explained how in one month the call charges was abnormal. In 1st month in January/ February it was normal. From April to May charges was normal only to 721. but during this period on February – March higher amount claimed. Voice call to Canada, USA, Europe was shown. Then it is shown to Australia and  Number of call was 260  instead of 50 . Call duration shown 4 minutes 15 seconds. There is some latches in preparation of bills. O.P. No.1 and 2 who supplied the sim failed to take any step for giving any redress. They are the agents of Airtel, doing business at Agartala but they did nothing to give service to the petitioner. This is deficiency of service by the 2 agents of Airtel which caused pain and suffering to the petitioner. Airtel authority, O.P. No.3 did not give any justification for claiming such huge amount for this period of 8th February to 2nd March. As such we consider that petitioner is to give monthly charges 999 for this period not Rs.5463/- as claimed. Other bills are found correctly prepared and petitioner is pay the same accordingly. 

        In view of our discussion it is clear that petitioner will pay monthly charge 999 for the 8th February  to 2nd March 2016 instead of 5463/- as claimed. We also direct O.P. No.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5000/- each total Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner for their deficiency of service. O.P. No.3 is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the petitioner as  the litigation cost  as they failed to settle the dispute amicably. In total O.Ps are to pay Rs.11,000/-(eleven thousand) to the petitioner as compensation and receive Rs.999/- as call charges for the period from 8th February to 2nd March 2016 instead of Rs.5463/- as claimed. The case is decided accordingly. Direct the O.Ps to follow the direction within 2 months  to pay the compensation and receive the bill amount as directed. If it is not done it will carry interest 9% P.A. After expiry of 2 months. 

                     Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.