BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.202 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.06.2014

Date of Decision :09.02.2015

Pawan Sood aged about 36 years son of Kishori Lal Sood, R/o 53, Marine Avenue, Rehmanpur Road, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar Cantt.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd, C-25, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Office Incharge.

2. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd,(A Bharti Enterprise) Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through its Managing Director.

3. M/s Inder Enterprises(Authorized Representative of Bharti Airtel) Kamal Complex-5, Session Court Road, BMC Chowk, Jalandhar through its Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Sh.HS Kohli Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

Opposite party No.3 exparte.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is using Airtel mobile No.98143-65566 for the last about three years and then he heard about the 4G services being provided by Airtel in Jalandhar as such the complainant approached to their local dealer i.e opposite party No.3 for the purchase of 4G connection but the complainant was informed by the opposite party No.3 that 4G services can only be availed on iPhone 5C or iPhone 5S and the same can not be used on iPhone 5 available with the complainant, as such the complainant was advised to purchase a new handset/iPhone 5C or 5S to get activate the 4G services. As per the advise given by opposite party No.3 the complainant on 9.6.2014 purchased a new mobile handset/iPhone 5S by exchanging his earlier mobile iPhone 5 from M/s Vishal Mobile House situated at 5-B, Model Town Market, Jalandhar on payment of Rs.48,000/- cash against the adjustment amount through his HDFC credit card with the hope that now he could get activate 4G service of Airtel company. After purchasing the new handset the complainant approached opposite party No.3 on 9.6.2014 and purchased the 4G plan of Airtel company of Rs.999/- per month and also got swap his sim card from a normal sim card to 4G sim card No.89910209041000 350717 and at that time it was assured to the complainant by the officials staff of opposite party No.3 that the 4G services will activate within 2 hours. But to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant no such services were activated inspite of passing away of more than 6 hours. Hence the complainant approached to opposite party no.3 who told the complainant to contact the customer care as such the complainant made a telephone call on their customer care No.121 and again it was assured that the services will start soon but inspite of making three consecutive calls at customer care the services were not started rather it was informed by one of the representative of customer care that the 4G services are not available in Jalandhar District, hence the same can not be activated. Whereas on the other hand the opposite party No.3 had given a print out of activation of 4G services of the complainant showing the activation date as 9.6.2014 but infact there was no services at all. Hence feeling aggrieved the complainant also sent a complaint to the customer care at their email address 121@in.airtel.com but of no response till date from the side of opposite party or their customer care. The complainant again sent a reminder to customer care on 10.6.2014 vide service request No.56641886 but again no response was received from the side of opposite parties. The complainant has been running from pillar to post for the last about 4-5 days to get activate his 4G services but nobody from the opposite parties is caring about the same. Whereas the complainant has spent Rs.48,000/- from availing the said services. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.48,000/- which he spent on purchasing new handset for 4G services. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared and filed a written reply pleading that replying opposite parties are providing telecom services to the public at large under license from Department of Telecommunication. The replying opposite parties appoint its authorized distributors who work on principal to principal basis with the company. It is submitted that 4G services are available in Jalandhar and as and when any subscriber wants the same he is informed about the availability of services at the places in the town, as specific infrastructure is installed for the same. Any subscriber who wants the 4G services is intimated of the connectivity at places, and as such every customer has information that at which part the services are available. That 4G services provide high speed data and handsets of specific configuration are required. The customer approached their distributor and after checking his handset compatibility he was provided the 4G plan. It is not a case where he was suggested to buy any set as alleged. It is submitted that complainant opted for alleged plan and prior to his opting he was provided the demo of the services and was also informed that the services would be available at his office premises and not at his home. The complainant was very well aware about the connectivity availability prior to his subscription under 4G. The service was activated on 9.6.2014 on his number. It is denied that the customer was told that 4G services are not available in Jalandhar. The complainant is abusing the process of law just to enrich himself by misusing the benevolent provisions of law. The complainant know prior to his subscription that where his services would have connectivity in town. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. Opposite party No.3 did not appear inspite of notice and as such it was proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties No.1 and 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the both the parties.

7. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant relying on the advertisement of Airtel obtained 4G sim card with No. 89910209041000350717 from opposite party No.3 on 9.6.2014 with plan of Rs.999/- per month but 4G services were not available at Jalandhar and his connection was never activated and it constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. He further contended that complainant purchased new mobile handset for 4G services. On the other hand, it has been contended by learned counsel for the opposite parties No.1 and 2 that the complainant was informed about the availability of 4G services at specific places in Jalandhar, town has specific infrastructure installed for the same. He further contended that the 4G service was activated on 9.6.2014 on the number of the complainant. He further contended that complainant knew prior to his subscription that where his services would have connectivity in town. He further contended that when the complainant opted for 4G services the set was already with him. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by both the parties. Ex.C2 is copy of advertisement given by Bharti Airtel i.e opposite parties No.1 & 2, wherein it is specifically mentioned that Airtel has launched its 4G service in Jalandhar. In the advertisement, there is no mention that 4G services are only available at few places in Jalandhar. In their written reply, opposite parties No.1 and 2 have pleaded in para 2 on merits that service was activated on 9.6.2014 on his number i.e number of the complainant. In case the 4G services has been activated on 9.6.2014 on the number of the complainant then opposite parties No.1 and 2 must have sent bills to the complainant for the subsequent months but no such bill has been produced or proved on record by the opposite parties No.1 and 2. At the time of giving 4G connection and alleged activation of service at the mobile number of the complainant, the opposite parties must have been aware of the residential address of the complainant. No mobile connection is given without address proof of the subscriber. So in case, the 4G service was available at the residential address of the complainant then the complainant should not have been given 4G connection. It appears that 4G services were never activated by opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 9.6.2014 as alleged by them in their written reply. In case they had activated the 4G service on 9.6.2014 then they must have sent monthly bills to the complainant for subsequent months as complainant had obtained plan of Rs.999/- per month but no such bill has been produced on record. Opposite party No.3 who is distributor of opposite parties No.1 and 2 was also at fault as he gave 4G connection to the complainant knowing fully well that connectivity of 4G connection was not available in Jalandhar. So all the opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. However in our opinion, complainant is not entitled to price of the mobile handset purchased by him. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

09.02.2015 Member President