Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/32/2015

Rajiv Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In person

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/32/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19/01/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	12/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rajiv Goel son of Sh. D.P. Goel, R/o H.No.326, Sector 6, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, through its Managing Director, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh – 160101.

 

…… Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For OP	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

]

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present lis are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant got installed an Airtel 4G internet connection No. 9915558084, at his residence, in April 2013. It has been alleged that for the past 3-4 months, he has not been receiving the appropriate speed/service, which was committed by the Opposite Party at the time of installation of the aforesaid connection. To this effect an e-mail dated 6.12.2014 (Annexure A1) was sent to the Opposite Party, which was duly acknowledged vide Annexure A2. Thereafter, vide e-mail dated 15.12.2014 the Opposite Party informed the Complainant about problem in the 4G ZTE CPE hardware, which was replaced by an old instrument, saying that it would be replaced later on with a new instrument. Despite this, when the problem of the Complainant was not resolved, he made umpteen number of complaints to the Opposite Party but no appropriate assistance/help was given by it. Eventually, a legal notice dated 08.01.2015 was served upon the Opposite Party (Annex.A4), but nothing positive could come out. When the Opposite Party failed to provide a permanent resolution of the grievance of the Complainant, left with no alternative, he has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, claiming various reliefs.

     

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Party in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that it is providing best of the services and the Complainant is also getting the good speed as being provided to all the subscribers at Panchkula. It has been asserted that it has provided all the services to the Complainant and his problems were also attended promptly. It has been submitted that the speed of the internet relates to number of factors and the best of internet 4G services are provided to the Complainant. There is no problem of speed in the Airtel 4G internet connection of the Complainant. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the respective written statement filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party has been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the Complainant in person and learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed by the Complainant.

 

7.     It is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties, that there were indeed issues with regard to the pace of functioning of the 4G connection obtained by the Complainant and that he did make a number of Complaints in that connection. In support of the averment in rebuttal, the Opposite Parties have not produced any documentation. By the very nature of things, an individual who obtains a 4G connection would legitimately expect the functioning thereof at a reasonable pace. If such a facility functions at a faulty pace or gets disconnected frequently, it does amount to deficiency in the rendering of services by the service provider. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in the rendering of services.

 

8.     For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party. The same is allowed. We direct the Opposite Party to:- 

 

[a]  To ensure a permanent resolution of the grievance of the Complainant;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

9.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] above. 

 

10.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th August, 2015                                         Sd/-           

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                           Sd/-               

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER