Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/2521/2017

Raghavendra R, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, - Opp.Party(s)

29 Oct 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 08.09.2017

                                                      Disposed on: 29.10.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.2521/2017

DATED THIS THE 29^th OCTOBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Raghavendra.R,

S/o Ravindranath,

No.339, I main,

HMT layout,

Ananda Nagar,

Bengaluru-24.

 

By Adv.Smt.Avathi

Ravindranath     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

M/s.Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

by its Chief Executive Officer,

Nodal Office, 55,

Divyashree Chambers, Bannerghatta Road,

Bengaluru

 

By Advocates

M/s.Eesh and Eesh Associates Advocates

 

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Op) seeking issuance of direction to pay a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the deficiency of services in the form of all the losses he has suffered and the mental agony etc., he underwent for more than a month without the services of the Phone number.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he is the subscriber to Airtel Mobile Sim bearing no.8105333285 (hereinafter referred to as the said number). He has been using the said number for the last six to seven years. He owned a mobile which was lost or stolen and an e-report was lodged with the police. Immediately on 20.06.17, he filed a lost report complaint to the police. He immediately contacted the Op’s customer care and requested them to block all messages/calls from the said number. Complainant sought a new SIM from the Op with the same number. And the Op said they would provide a new SIM with the same number and Complainant was advised to contact a local airtel office and get a duplicate SIM card. He was told that the SIM would be activated within 4 hours. The e-report was lodged on 20.06.17. And the alternative SIM was given by Op’s local office at about 8.00p.m. Ever since then, Complainant is struggling to have the said mobile activated. Complainant has contacted Op’s officials umpteen number of times. He must have contacted Op’s customer care office some 50/60 times. After some days, Op was not even answering the calls once they came to know it was from Complainant. Op, a reputed company of telecom providers, indulged in this type of deplorable attitude. The Complainant further submits that, due to non-availability of the said mobile number, he could not pay the credit card dues amounting to about Rs.23,000/-, thereby cutting a sorry figure before the concerned bank and a black mark was created in the books of the bank. He had to pay hefty fine of Rs.300/-. Vehicle insurance reminder that came from the insurance company to the said mobile number could not be attended in time. The aforesaid phone number was the number he had given to about 1000 friends and relatives and a number of social activities were cut down due to the non-availability of the established number. There were a number of complaints from friends and relatives about the same. He has suffered untold misery and hardship because of deficiency of service by the Op. The Complainant further submits that, Op did not activate the said number for a long time. This is post-paid number and the bills are regularly paid through e-transfer from Complainant’s bank account. Op was repeatedly asking the Complainant to visit its customer care offices and buy SIM cards by paying Rs.25/- each time. Thus he purchased such SIM cards 3 times in all. At last on 24.07.17, the said number was activated. The Complainant further submits that, he was denied the services of the said number for more than a month. He became sick with anger, frustration, agony and anxiety occupying most part of his time. He has suffered heavy losses, suffered injury, undergone too much of mental strain. The injury he has suffered all these days owing to the deficiency of service on the part of the Op cannot be equated in terms of money. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear and filed version.  The sum and substance of the version of the Op are that, the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts, hence liable to be dismissed.  Op submits that, the present dispute raised by the Complainant is not maintainable before this from in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 followed by Hon’ble National Commission in the order dtd.18.07.12 passed in RP.no.398/2011. As per the said judgments, since the dispute raised by the Complainant is between the subscriber and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the Complainant is u/s.7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this count itself the present complaint is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. Further relying on the said judgment the various State Commissions have also disposed of the complaints holding that any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliances or apparatus shall be determined by the arbitrators. The Op further submits that, grievance of the Complainant is that, he being a subscriber of the Op with respect to the said mobile number has lost the mobile instrument along with the SIM card as such he has sought for the duplicate SIM card with the same number before the Op. Complainant has contended that, there is inordinate delay on the part of Op in activation of the mobile number, though it was assured that, the number would be activated within 4 hours. The Op further submits that, though immediate action was taken by the Op and the number was activated by 26.06.17 itself due to some error crept in the backend software which monitor the activation of a mobile connection more particularly in this case pertains to the mobile number of the Complainant, which resulted in the fact that, though the system of the Op shows the activation of the mobile number but in actual the number remained suspended. After Complainant made enquiry, all possible efforts were made by the Op to solve the issue. In fact Complainant was also provided with fresh SIM card twice, to rule out any possibility of defect in the SIM card. The Op further submits that, it also do concede that some delay has crept in activation of the mobile number. It is pertinent to note that, the Op would not be benefited in any manner by not activating a mobile number, on the other hand any telecom service provider would make endeavor to activate the mobile number which in fact a business policy of such telecom service provider. A technical error which is beyond the control of Op, which unfortunately occurred in the instant case. In fact it is not any such human error so as to find any fault with the Op. Nevertheless there is no negligence or wilful default on the part of any of the employees of the Op in causing delay for activation of the mobile number. In remaining para 6 to11 of its version, Op specifically denied the allegations made by the Complainant as against it. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A17 and produced one document. The authorized person of Op filed affidavit evidence. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether he entitled for the relief sought for ?    
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: Partly in the Affirmative.   

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Op. Op has taken specific contention that, complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in the light of the decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW 5631 in the case of General Manager, Telecom vs. M.Krishnan & anr. In many of the cases, we come across with the said decision. The sum and substance of the said decision is with regard to referring the matter to the Arbitrator if dispute relates to billing but not otherwise. In the instant case, the grievance of the Complainant is that, he lost his mobile along with SIM card. Hence, he requested the Op to provide with a similar number SIM. Hence, with due regards, decision cited by Op is not applicable.

 

          8. Now, turning to the controversy between the Complainant and Op is in respect of providing the similar number SIM. It is not in dispute with regard to the claim of the Complainant in respect of getting similar number 8105333285. Considering the request of the Complainant, Op has provided the SIM with said number. According to the case of the Complainant, the said SIM ought to have been activated within 4 hours but it did not. In this context, he approached the Op. As we already stated above, providing similar number SIM by the Op at the request of the Complainant is not in dispute, but where went wrong on the part of Op is concerned, it has specifically stated in para 4 & 5 of its version stating that, though immediate action was taken by it and the number was activated by 26.06.17 itself due to some error crept in the backend software which monitor the activation of a mobile connection, more particularly in this case pertains to the mobile number of the Complainant, which resulted in the fact that, though the system of the Op shows the activation of the mobile number but in actual the number remained suspended. After Complainant made enquiry, all possible efforts were made by the Op to solve the issue. Op has also concede that some delay has crept in activation of the mobile number. Further, Op would not be benefited in any manner by not activating a mobile number, on the other hand any telecom service provider would make endeavor to activate the mobile number which in fact a business policy of such telecom service provider. A technical error which is beyond the control of Op, which unfortunately occurred in the instant case. In fact it is not any such human error so as to find any fault with the Op. Nevertheless there is no negligence or wilful default on the part of any of the employees of the Op in causing delay for activation of the mobile number. If these facts are taken in to consideration, one thing is clear that, there is delay in activating the said number. The settled principle in respect of availing duplicate SIM or lost SIM or replace SIM, user will be given a new SIM card. It takes up to 4 hours for the new SIM card to be activated. Airtel will carry forward the remaining balance and validity from his old SIM to the new SIM. Considering this aspect, if we direct the Op to activate the said number if not yet activated by awarding compensation of Rs.3,000/- with cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-, we hope ends of justice would met sufficiently. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 partly in the affirmative.

 

           9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part.

         

          2. Op is directed to activate the said mobile number 8105333285 if not activated.

 

3. Op is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant.

 

4. We also direct the Op to comply the order within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainant is at liberty to have the redress as per law.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 29^th October 2018).

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Raghavendra.R, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	e-complaint to police dtd.20.06.17
Ex-A2	Complaint to Bellandur police dtd.21.06.17
Ex-A3	Legal notice dtd.28.06.17
Ex-A4 to A17	Emails dtd.28.06.17, 29.06.17, 30.06.17, 01.07.17, 01.07.17, 03.07.17, 04.07.17, 05.07.17, 09.07.17, 10.07.17, 12.07.17, 17.07.17
Doc.no.1	Airtel duplicate sim, lost sim, replace sim – plans.

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Siddaveer Chakki, who being the authorized person of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

NIL -

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT