Delhi

New Delhi

CC/670/2013

Siddharth Dutta Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S . Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/670/13                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Siddharth Dutta,

Advocate, Office:

27, Lawyers’ Chamber,

Supreme Court of India, Tilak Marg,

New Delhi-110001

 

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

 

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited,

(A Bharti Enterprise),

Through its Managing Director,

Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal, Bharti Crescent,

1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II,

New Delhi-110070

 

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

               

The deficiency alleges on the part of OP is that, it raised bills for usage despite breach of credit limit on use of Airtel connection of OP with Complainant. It is alleged that OP generated a bill of Rs.1,40,1000/- a use of mobile no.98100071722 and raised blackberry charges for roaming between Dec 24-31, 2011 and Jan 4-5, 2012. According to the complainant, blackberry services were not available during this period, when he was abroad. It is stated that ‘Credit limit’ was breached long back before raising the bill, and the charges tariff was not, informed to him. His outgoing services were also barred, and he was never informed of exceeding credit limit. He served a legal notice which was not replied.

The complainant seeks compensation for the deficiency in services, of unilaterally raising bill, without sharing of information of credit breach & rates to be charged. The OP did not file a reply or notice, but its counsel argued that it being as billing dispute was not maintainable in view of S.C order in G.M Telecom Vs. M.Krisha, when Hon’ble SC stated that billing disputes as to be file before Arbitrator.

We have considered the rival case, and find that the said judgment applies in case of dispute between telegraph authority and service provider, and will not apply to dispute between consumer & service provider. In view of this, the application of OP questioning was earlier dismissed on 15.04.14. Thereafter OP has not filed a reply. It defense is struck off. In the light of these facts, we hold OP guilty of deficiency in allowing usage despite breach of credit limit, without first informing the complainant. We according direct OP to withdrawal bills of excess use permitted by it, deliberately and pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation to complainant for harassment, deficiency and litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER