BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

Vijay Anand s/o Late Shri Balbir Chand Anand, R/o H.No.240, Sector-4, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. through its, Sh.Sunil Mittal Managing         Director having its Registered office at Bharti Crescent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasankunj, Phase-II, New Delhi.

2.     Branch Manager, M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. having its office at Plot    No.21, Rajeev Gandhi-l, Park, Chandigarh-160101

3.     Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, Mahanagar Doorsanchar,        Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110002

                                                                                     ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

                        Dr.Suman Singh, Member

For the Parties:   Sh. S.M.Wadhera, Advocate, alongwith complainant.   

                        Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

                        Name of the OP No.3 deleted vide order dated 06.12.2021.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are, that the complainant has been availing the services of Opposite party no.1 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1) since 12 years back by taking postpaid mobile no.9815007934; in addition to the said mobile  number, the complainant had availed the services of OP No.1 qua another mobile no.9779907934 for  the use of his daughter; the OP No.1 has provided its services qua the said mobile numbers under the postpaid triff plan wherein the usage charges were paid on the basis of monthly basis; the OP no.1 had issued monthly bill no.BM21061001856345 dated 21.07.2020 with regard to Mobile no. 9815007934 for Rs.744/- for the period w.e.f.20.06.2020 to 19.07.2020; the usage charges as shown in the said monthly bill dated 21.07.2020 were payable latest by 08.08.2020, as such, the complainant could deposit the amount of usage bill as shown in the monthly bill dated 21.07.2020 till 08.08.2020; on 23.07.2020, the OP No.1 restricted the services on his mobile nos.9815007934 & 9779907934 by withdrawing of facility  outgoing calls, SMS and internet data service on two mobile numbers despite the fact that the date for payment of the monthly bill dated 21.07.2020 was 08.08.2020; that the complainant  informed the OPs No.1 & 2 about the withdrawal of outgoing calls, sms services and internet data service from the said two mobile numbers at relevant email addresses of the OPs No.1 & 2; that no response was received from OPs No.1 & 2 qua the said email sent by the complainant on 23.07.2020; the complainant was facing difficulty in his business activities due to illegal withdrawal of outgoing call services, sms services and internet data services from the said two mobile numbers and this  compelled the complainant to send reminder regarding restoration of the outgoing calls, SMS services and also internet data service on the said two mobile numbers; on 26.07.2020, the complainant received email from Airtel experience advisor, informing him that the OPs No.1 & 2 have restored the services on the said two mobile numbers for next, 72 hours(viz. for three days) and also asked  the complainant to deposit  Rs. 593.66  at the earliest; in the same email, it was mentioned that services  would get restricted automatically, in case, the payment was not made within 72 hours, and the complainant was asked to deposit  Rs.593.66 at the earliest. It is stated that the payment of the said monthly bill dated 21.07.2020 was to be made upto 08.08.2020, which was clearly mentioned on the said monthly bill dated 21.07.2020. It is stated that on 27.07.2020 at 10:26AM, the complainant was informed through email that outgoing calls services have been stopped on mobile nos.9815007934, 9779907934 and asked him(the complainant) to pay the monthly bill dated 21.07.200 charges immediately for restoration of the services on the said two mobile numbers. It is stated that on 27.07.2020 at 10:20 AM, the OPs No.1 & 2 again illegally restricted the out-going calls, SMS Services and also internet services on the said two mobile numbers despite the fact that the Ops had given time to make the payment of the bills dated 21.07.2020 by 08.08.2020.

                The complainant on 30.07.2020 again sent email to the Nodal officer of OPs No.1 & 2 informing him about  the illegal act of withdrawal of outgoing services, SMS services and internet services on said two mobile numbers and request was made to restore the services on the said mobile numbers. It is alleged that the OPs No.1 & 2 had failed to restore the facility of outgoing calls, SMS services and internet services on two said mobile numbers, which amounts to grave deficiency on their part. It is stated that the complainant deposited the monthly bill charges qua the said bill dated 21.07.2020 on 08.08.2020 and only thereafter, the withdrawn services on the said mobile numbers were restored on 08.08.2020 at 04:00PM. It is stated that the OPs No.1 & 2 had again issued the monthly bill for the next month i.e. August, 2020 on 21.08.2020 and stopped the outgoing calls, SMS Services as well as internet services on the said two mobile numbers. It is averred that the OPs again 3^rd time on 21.09.2020 discontinued the said services i.e. out-going calls, SMS services and internet services on the said two mobile numbers despite the fact that the date of making of the payment as per the bill was on 08.10.2020. It is alleged that the act on the part of OPs, while restricting the services before the last date was  illegal and invalid; thus, due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement by raising preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands as he has suppressed the true and material facts; the complainant is not consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act; no cause of action has accrued in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.

                On merits, it is submitted that the complainant was provided  the outgoing calls, SMS and internet data services on his mobile no. 9815007934, wherein the credit limit was upto Rs.500/- and there was no security deposit also. It is submitted that as per the bill of July 2020, the usage was Rs.744/-, whereas the credit limit was Rs.500/-. It is submitted that the billing system was computerized, wherein the services were restricted automatically, in case, once the credit limit is crossed by the complainant qua usage charges. It is submitted that the usage charges of the mobile of the complainant had exceeded beyond the credit limit of Rs.500/- in the month of July, August and September, 2020 and there was no security deposit and thus, there was no deficiency on the part of the OPs, while restricting the services. There were no lapses or deficiency on the part of Ops and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.             The OP no.3 has been deleted from the array of the parties vide Commission order dated 06.12.2021.

4.             Replication to the written statements of the OPs No.1 & 2 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

5.             To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and gone through the entire record available on the file including the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OPs No.1 & 2, minutely and carefully.

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant, during arguments,  has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit(Annexure C-A) and contended that the Ops has rendered  deficient services to the complainant, while withdrawing  of the facility of outgoing calls, SMS and internet services on the two mobile numbers  in question. The main submissions as made by the learned counsel are summarized as under:-

i.      That the Ops vide bill dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), bill dated         21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & bill dated 21.09.2020(Annexure C-7)      had given the last date for making the payment of the amount      qua the usage charges as 08.08.2020, 08.09.2020 and   09.10.2020 respectively but the facility of outgoing calls, SMS    facility and   internet services were withdrawn qua said two mobile       numbers in question by the OPs before the last date for making the payment.  It was argued that the OP’s act of withdrawing of    facility of outgoing calls, SMS services & internet facility before the     last date for making the payment qua usage charges was totally      invalid, unwarranted and unjustified. 

2.     That no notice or SMS, whatsoever, of any kind in any manner was given by the Ops to the complainant before indulging into the      act of withdrawal of out-going calls, SMS services and internet     services on the mobile numbers in question.

3.     That the plea taken by the OPs that the complainant was given the credit limit qua usage charges up to Rs.500/- is totally wrong;         thus, the same is not tenable because the complainant had never   opted for any such credit limit as alleged. It was argued that the    imposition of credit limit unilaterally by the Ops vide said bills     dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-       6) & dated 21.09.2020(Annexure C-7) was arbitrary and illegal.

4.     That the complainant was never asked by the Ops to deposit any       kind of security.

                Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel contended that the complainant had suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment because of the illegal act on the part of the Ops, while withdrawing the internet services etc. qua two mobile numbers in question and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as prayed for in the complaint.

8.             On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the Ops contested the complaint on several grounds and justified the action of the OPs, withdrawing of the facility of internet facility etc. on the mobile numbers in question.

                The main submissions as made by the learned counsel are summarized as under:-

1. That the complainant had exceeded the credit limit of Rs.500/-, while using the internet facility etc. on his mobile numbers.  It was argued that the credit limit of Rs.500/- was apparent as the same was clearly mentioned on the said bill dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), bill dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & bill dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure C-7), whereas the usage charges vide said bills were in excess of the credit limit of Rs.500/- and thus, the action taken by the OPs, while withdrawing the outgoing calls, SMS services etc. and internet services, was valid and justified.
2. That no notice, whatsoever, as alleged by the complainant was required to be given to the complainant before taking action of withdrawal of the outgoing calls, SMS services and internet facilities etc. qua mobile numbers in question because the credit limit was clearly mentioned on the said bill dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), bill dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & bill dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure C-7).
3. That no security amount was got deposited by the Ops qua the usage charges pertaining to the mobile numbers in question and thus, the act on the part of the OPs while withdrawing the facility of internet etc. on the said mobile numbers in question was valid and justified as the usage charges had exceeded the credit limit of Rs.500/-.
4. That the complainant was duly informed vide email Annexure C-3 to make the payment at the earliest and the facilities of internet etc. were restored for next 72hours but the complainant had defaulted in making the payment qua the usage charges and thus, no deficiency is liable to be attributed on the part of the OPs.

The learned counsel in support of his contention has relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal in F.A.No.A/888/2017 in case titled as Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Vs. Shashi Kant Khetan decided on 03.07.2018.

9.             Admittedly, the facility of the out-going calls, SMS and internet services qua the mobile numbers in question was withdrawn by the OPs on 21.07.2020, 21.08.2020 & 21.09.2020, whereas the last date, upto which the payment by the complainant qua the usage charges was to be made, was as 08.08.2020, 08.09.2020 & 09.10.2020 as per bill Annexure C-1, C-6 & C-7 respectively. As per the OP’s version, the facility of the out-going calls, sms facility and internet facility was withdrawn because the usage charges had exceeded the credit limit of Rs.500/-. It is correct that the credit limit of Rs.500/- was mentioned in the said bill dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), bill dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & bill dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure C-7) but a careful perusal of the same reveals that there was no warning or remarks or any directions contained in the said bills cautioning the complainant to make the payment before the last date of payment as the usage charges had exceeded the credit limit. We find no condition or remarks appended with the column of credit limit in bills i.e. dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure C-7). In the absence of any remarks or warning cautioning the complainant that in case of exceeding of usage charges beyond the credit limit of Rs.500/-, the facility of outgoing calls, SMS and internet services would automatically stand withdrawn, the OP’s act, by no stretch of imagination in withdrawing the facility of internet etc. can be said to be valid and justified.

10.            Undisputedly, the last date vide bills i.e. dated 21.07.2020 (Annexure C-1), dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure C-7) was dated 08.08.2020, 08.09.2020 & 09.10.2020 upto which the payment by the complainant was to be made to the OPs qua usage charges; thus, in case, the OPs had any intention to withdraw the outgoing facility etc. on the basis of credit limit of Rs.500/- then in that eventuality, the column of last date ought to have been kept blank.

11.            In our considered opinion, mere mentioning of the credit limit as Rs.500/- in the bill dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), bill dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & bill dated 21.09.2020(Annexure C-7) had not authorized or empowered the OPs to withdraw the internet services qua the mobile numbers in question without any warring or directions to the complainant that in case of the usage charges exceeding the credit limit, the internet services would automatically stand withdrawn.

12.            Further, no notice or letter or any SMS, whatsoever, was given by the Ops before withdrawing the facility of outgoing calls, sms and internet date services etc. qua mobile numbers in question.

13.            Pertinently, in the present digital era, the internet services and mobile number connectivity are essential for a person so as to enable him to carry out the various work related to his personal, domestic and business activity; as such, the withdrawal of facility of outgoing calls, SMS facility and internet services by the OPs without any notice etc. to the complainant before withdrawing the said facility was neither proper nor justified. Moreover, the Ops have not controverted or rebutted the consistent, specific and categorical contentions of the complainant that he never opted any credit limit etc., as alleged by the them(OPs) by submitting any documentary evidence on record i.e. the application form etc. of the complainant seeking the said credit facility,  so as to disprove and falsify his contentions; thus, we find force and substance in the contentions that he never opted for any credit limit of Rs.500/- as mentioned in the said bills dated 21.07.2020(Annexure C-1), dated 21.08.2020(Annexure C-6) & dated 21.09.2020(Annexure C-7). We also agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for the complainant that no unilateral condition like credit limit can be imposed without the consent of the complainant; thus, the withdrawal of outgoing calls, SMS facility and internet data services qua the mobile numbers in question, solely on the basis of credit limit, was not valid and justified. 

14.            Furthermore,  the last plea taken by the Ops that there was no security deposit qua the facility of internet etc. on the said mobile numbers and thus,  the action of the Ops while taking the action of  withdrawal of facility of internet series etc. on the ground that usage charges had exceeded  the credit limit, was valid and justified.

15.            No merit, is found in the said plea because the complainant was never asked by the Ops to make deposit of any security amount while fixing the credit limit of Rs.500/-; thus, the last plea is also of no avail to the case of the Ops.

16.            In view of the discussion made above, no valid justification is found on the part of the Ops in taking the action of withdrawal of the out-going calls, SMS facility and internet facility qua the mobile numbers in question; as such we are of the considered view that the Ops No.1 & 2 have been deficient, while rendering the services to the complainant, for which, they are liable to compensate the complainant, jointly and severally.

17.            In relief, the complainant has prayed for restoration of the facility of outgoing calls, SMS and internet data facility on the above said mobile numbers i.e. 9815007934 and 9779907934. Further, a compensation of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.20,000 and Rs. 20,000/- have been claimed on account of mental agony, harassment, indulgence of the Ops into unfair trade practice and litigation charges respectively.

18.            During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the facility of outgoing calls, SMS and internet facility have already been restored; he has now prayed for grant of compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.

19.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

1. To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony and  harassment.  
2. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- to complainant as  litigations charges.          

20.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:30.07.2024

                Dr.Suman Singh          Dr.Sushma Garg           Satpal

                        Member                   Member               President

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                                 Satpal

                                            President