Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/656/2017

Rajneesh Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

08 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/656/2017
Date of Institution	:	15/09/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/05/2018

 

Rajneesh Goel son of Late Sh. Inderjit Goel, Resident of House No. 2310, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101, through its Manager Customer Care.

Also at other address:

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070, through its Manager Customer Care.

……Opposite Party

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

       

PRESENT:	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Rajat Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant was visiting Singapore and had subscribed to an international roaming package offered by Opposite Party for his postpaid mobile no. 9878922200 on 09.07.2017. The package costing Rs.1199/- plus applicable taxes and was valid for 10 days from 10.07.2017 till 19.07.2017. As per the package the Complainant was entitled to have unlimited incoming calls, 3 GB free data, 250 free minutes to India and Singapore local calls, 100 free SMSs from 10.07.2017 to 19.07.2017 without any daily limit till the free data or free outgoing calls were exhausted. The Complainant returned to India on 17.07.2017 and de-activated the international roaming package on 17.07.2017 successfully using Airtel mobile application. However, on receiving the bill, the Complainant realized that the Opposite Party charged him wrongly. The matter was accordingly taken up with Opposite Party for reversal of the charges wrongly imposed, but to no success. Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.  
3.         The Opposite Party in its written statement has not disputed the factual matrix of the case. However, it has been averred that the Complainant was rightly charged and the billing was done as per records and as per the usage. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant in person and Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         Per Annexure A-1, which is a copy of bill dated 27.07.2017, it is evident that the Opposite Party had charged the Complainant for two packages; one for Rs.1199/- on 10.07.2017 and Rs.499/- on 17.07.2017, totaling Rs.1698/-. The first package of Rs.1199/- was valid from 10.07.2017 to 19.07.2017 (10 days). Hence, it is legitimately proved that the Opposite Party had wrongly charged the Complainant for Rs.499/- on 17.07.2017; whereas, the first package taken by the Complainant was still operational. Thus, non-refunding the said amount to the Complainant, despite repeated requests, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint, deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed as under :-

(i)     To refund to the complainant Rs.499/- being the amount wrongly charged;

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

(iii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

 

9.         This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, Opposite Party shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                        

08.05.2018

                                     Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

       Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

      

                                  Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”  

text-raise:6.0pt; letter-spacing:1.2pt'>“Dutt”