SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

            Complainant filed this complaint for getting compensation from the opposite party

            Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is a customer of Bharti Airtel Ltd,   Complainant is seeking compensation of INR 2,00,000/- for the mental distress, inconvenience, and financial exploitation I have suffered as a direct result to Airtel’s of actions and negligence.  It is submitted that the Airtel network at his residence and nearby area, Sree Nilayam(PO) Kappad Kannur, Kerala is persistently weak.  This results in dropped calls, lagging data, and continuous disruptions, deeply affecting my professional and personal communications.  He has raised the 1^st complaint regarding this matter on May 26^th 2023 and the ticket got closed without any update via phone or any other means of communication, after that he has raised other 3 tickets and all of them was closed without any update via phone or any other means of communication.  After that he has raised other 3 tickets and all of them was closed without any update via phone or any other means of communication.   On June 28, 2023 again escalated the issue to Airtel Nodal Officer via     e-mail but was repeatedly met with impersonal automated replies without any resolution or update until 29^th September 2023. Further, submitted that without his permission, Airtel arbitrarily activated an inappropriate caller tune on his number, 7795306313. This invasive act caused embarrassment and inconvenience.  To address the caller Tune issue, Airtel’s suggested “solution” was coercing the complainant to download the wynk app.  This app, unfortunately, did not resolve the issue.  Further, alleged that he was provided with no option to direly speak with an Airtel customer care representative for either new or old tickets, effectively isolating him from any meaningful assistance.  Despite informing grievances to Airtel’s Nodal Officer for Kerala call back or tangible resolution, reflecting a blatant disregard for their customer service commitments.  Hence the complaint.

            After receiving notices OPs filed version.  The main contentions of OPs are that Airtel has conducted a comprehensive assessment of the network coverage in the complainant’s residential area and the nearby vicinity.  The technical team has confirmed that there is adequate outdoor coverage in the complainant’s specified location.  This confirmation underscores the reliability of Airtel’s network infrastructure in the mentioned area.  Further, submitted that alleged inconvenience should be supported by concrete evidence.  Hence, prayed for the dismissal of complaint with cost.

            In order to substantiate the allegations in the complaint, complainant filed his chief-affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as Pw1 and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 and A2.  Ext. A1 is the e-mail communications between complainant and OP.  Ext.A2 is the screen short.  Complainant has not been cross examined by OP.  Since OP has not cross examined the complainant to rebut the allegations raised by the complainant against OP, the evidence of complainant became an unchallenged one.  Though, OP has filed version denying the allegations of the complainant.  OP has  not adduced evidence either oral or documentary evidence.  Contentions raised in the version itself is not sufficient. 

            The allegations raised by the complainant against OP are that “persistent network issues, Non addressal of the said network issues, Unauthorized caller tune activation, absence of caller tune disabling options and overly complex resolution mechanism associated with it, Forced installation of the third party app, Monetization by forced installation of the 3^rd party application, inefficient customer service, break in e-mail trial, failure in providing commitments” .

            In Ext.A1 it is seen that 41 messages were sent by complainant to the OP for getting their proper service.  It is evident that on 29/06/2023, OP replied to complainant that the issue would be resolved within 12/07/2023.  But from the subsequent messages we can realize that Op had not complied their assurance.  From Ext.A1 and A2 it is clear that OP had not provided proper service to the complainant.  Further as OP has not adduced any evidence, we are constrained to accept the evidence given by the complainant.  From the available evidence, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part OP and due to the said action, complainant sustained monetary loss and mental agony.  So the complainant is entitled to get relief.

            In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the mental stress, inconvenience  and financial loss.  Opposite party shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Failing which Rs.50,000/- will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of order till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per the provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts. 

A1-Communication transit

A2-Screen short

Pw1-Sreejesh K-Complianant

     Sd/                                                                                 Sd/                                                          Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

                                               /Forwarded by order/

                                              Assistant Registrar