Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/503/2016

Gehna Vaishnavi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

20 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	503 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	19.07.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	20.02.2017

 

 

 

Gehna Vaishnavi, House NO.100, Sector 24-A, Chandigarh.  

             …..Complainant

Versus

M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd., Plot NO.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh- through its authorised signatory/authorised person.

….. Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

For complainant(s)      : Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant and his family members were provided three corporate mobile numbers i.e. (a) 8427377774 (b) 8427377775 and (c) 8427377776 by the Opposite Party, having 500 free SMS, 500 minus free local Airtel to Airtel calls with data plan of 2 GB. It is averred that the complainant was using Mobile No.8427377776, which started giving problem from the very beginning especially in relation to internet plan which was not working.  It is averred that due to non-service of data plan of Airtel, the complainant was not able to work online via mobile and on the asking & messages of Opposite Party that the handset had the problems, the complainant had to change three handsets.  Then the complainant requested for porting all the three mobile numbers and made full and final payment to the Opposite Party, as asked for, before porting on 26.11.2015, but despite all that, the data plan was left activated by Airtel during the porting of Mobile connection and as such the complainant was sent sms for a bill of Rs.319.63/- for Dec., 2015. She raised her grouse with the OP, but still had to pay the bill of Rs.320/- for Jan., 2016.  It is submitted that the complainant was also forced to make payment of Rs.320/- for the month of Feb., 2016 by the Opposite Party as the Opposite Party had declared her as a defaulter consequent to which all the calls of the complainant were barred by the current operator i.e. Vodafone to which she had ported out on Nov. 26, 2015.  Then, the complainant sent a notice to the Opposite Party alleging unfairness on their part for charging repeatedly and also lodged a complaint on PG PORTAL (Ann.9), in response to which the Opposite Party replied that excess payment was made to other number i.e. 8427377775 (Ann. 10).  It is also submitted that it’s a new plea taken by the OP to safeguard their interest and moreover, it did not return even that excess amount, whereas the complainant received a bill by e-mail (Ann. 4) on 8.1.2016 in which payment received is mentioned against mobile number 842737776.  However, despite this the complainant was declared as defaulter.  The matter was also reported to Directorate of Public Grievances (DPG), who closed the case citing that the action has been taken and closed favourably, whereas the excess amount has not been refunded by the OP. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant had already opted for porting out the mobile Connection No.8427377776, which the complainant herself admitted in her complaint that the same was ported out on 26.11.2015 and thus, it is the responsibility of Vodafone to provide the services. It is also stated that in the reply sent by Opposite Party (Ann.A-10), it has been mentioned that there is no outstanding towards mobile No.8427377776 and the balance was only -0.37 paise.  It is further stated that there is no question of any harassment and the complainant has already opted for porting out to Vodafone.  The OP has acted as per the terms and conditions of TRAI guidelines and there is no question of any deficiency in service. It is submitted that there is no question of any force to make the payment, but before porting out, the outstanding due has to be cleared.  It is also submitted that after porting out to Vodafone, the Opposite Party cannot bar the calls, as the services are to be provided, after porting out, by the new service provider.  It is also pleaded that the OP has already conveyed that the company would process the adjustment of Rs.640/- on the complainant’s other number.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that made in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OP and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       It is a case where the complainant has completely been harassed at the hands of Opposite Party, which forced the complainant to run from pillar to post to get refund of her meager amount of Rs.640/-, which the Opposite Party has illegally charged from the complainant by forcing her to pay the bills for the services never availed by the complainant and she was no more the subscriber of Opposite Party at that time, when the disputed bills were raised by the OP.

 

7]       It is a proved case that on 26.11.2015, the complainant got ported her Mobile No.8427377776 from Opposite Party to another operator – Vodafone and after porting out, she was made to pay Rs.640/- against the two bills wrongly raised by OP.  The admission by the Opposite Party in its reply in Para NO.14 clinches the whole matter, wherein the Opposite Party showed its inclination/wiliness to refund the disputed amount i.e. Rs.640/- and also referred Ann.A-14 an e-mail already sent by the Opposite Party to the complainant in that regard. The relevant extract of the said e-mail is reproduced herein for the sake of convenience:-

“As per your telephonic conversation on 8427377776 with the undersigned dated on 04^th June 2016, as discussed we would like to inform you that kindly provide us your active alternate postpaid/prepaid airtel number so that we would process the adjustment of Rs.640.00/- on your number.”

 

8]       From the bare perusal of the above assurance for the refund by the Opposite Party, it seems to be a conditional one and thus not acceptable.  Despite having knowledge that the complainant is no more its subscriber and has already ported to another operator-Vodafone, OP’s demand for the active alternate pre-paid/post-paid airtel number to process the adjustment of Rs.640/- on that number, is highly unjustified and uncalled for.  Such condition of the Opposite Party is totally unjust, so the Opposite Party is under obligation to refund the amount in cash to the complainant at the earliest.  The evidence placed on record by the complainant establishes that the above said offer of refund made by the Opposite Party vide Ann.C-14 is the outcome of constant efforts made by the complainant to get her rightful refund from the Opposite Party.  Record reveals that before approaching this Forum, the complainant tried her level best to get her refund and even her complaint made to the Directorate of Public Grievances remained unfruitful. Thus, apart from the refund of the disputed amount, the complainant is also entitled for compensation for the harassment suffered by her due to deficient and unfair act of the Opposite Party as well as for thrusting unnecessary litigation on her.

 

9]       In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OP. The Opposite party is directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.640/- to the complainant;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party, also for thrusting litigation upon the complainant. 

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall also be liable to pay interest @9% per annum on amount as at sub–para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

20^th February, 2017                                                                          Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER