Complaint filed on: 05.09.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 09.12.2016

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1803/2012

             DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016            

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Mr. Hameed Hussain

Aged about 54 years

Son of Late

Mr. B.S.Ahmed Hussain

At Glamour Photographics No.33, Castle Street,

Ashok Nagar,

Bengaluru-560025

By Adv. Sri. J.Hudson Samuel

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Having its Registered Office at Bharti Crescent,

1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj Phase II,

New Delhi -110070

Rep by its Chairman and Managing Director

Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal

2. The Nodal Officer

Authorized Representative M/s. Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

At No.55, Divyashree Towers Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru-76

By Adv. Sri. B.J.Mahesh  

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

           The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service in issuing monthly bills of September 2011 to January 2012 by the Opposite parties and hence has claimed the compensation and for refund of alleged excess amount paid by him.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he availed the broadband/internet service from 2009 from the Opposite parties for his personal use and for use in his business for earning his livelihood by way of self-employment through landline number 41126892. He was paying average monthly charges Rs.1,198/-(excluding call and VAS charges and taxes) towards his broadband connection as supported by the bills of the months April 2010 to July 2011. The bill for August 2011 was received with shock, as it was for abnormal amount of Rs.22,883.99 (dtd.19.09.2011), though he was using “Unlimited Browsing Plan” on monthly rent of Rs.1,198/-. The complaint of August bill was registered by the Opposite parties with assurance to resolve it within 48 hours. Instead of rectifying the August bill the Opposite parties unilaterally without his notice disconnected the broadband/internet connection which made him to make payment of Rs.1,500/-. There after the internet connection was not restored despite his repeated requests. He sent e-mail dated 14.10.2011 to Opposite parties. Again bills were received for Rs.45,457.02(dtd.18.10.2011), Rs.77,316.83 (dtd.18.11.2011), Rs.9,225.66(dtd.29.12.2011) and Rs.10,690/(dtd.18.02.2012). The December bill showed the adjustment of Rs.65,450.98 without any basis and reasoning. Since the dispute period he has made total payment of Rs.8,712/- against all the bills raised which becomes higher than the actual liability. The said payment becomes excess payment of Rs.2,900/- which is not liable to be paid by him. Hence left with no alternative, requesting on 13.01.2012 got disconnection of broadband connection. Then also bill dated 18.02.2012 for Rs.10,692/- after the disconnection period was received. He issued legal notice on 01.03.2012 seeking refund of Rs.10,961/- which was replied on 10.04.2012 denying an outstanding balance. The Opposite parties have issued false and inflated bills as against the availed plan scheme and it amounts to negligence and failure in attending their obligations. Hence the complaint.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, as per the judgment 2009 AIR SCW-5631, as the remedy was to seek under arbitration Act. The bonafide mistake crept in the bills and waiving off the amount has already been rectified even before filing of the complaint and waiving off is also given during the course of this proceeding. After examining his complaint necessary action was taken to provide required adjustment in the bills. The company has not shown any negligence nor to failed to restore the internet connection as alleged. The correction entries made by it by giving necessary deduction is a goodwill gesture by it. The legal notice was replied properly. There is no deficiency in their part. There is no cause of action to file this complaint. Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

          4. The Complainant has filed affidavit evidence, additional affidavit evidence and further affidavit evidence. The Opposite party official has also filed affidavit evidence. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A17 documents. No documents were produced by the Opposite parties side. Written arguments were also filed by both the parties. Arguments were heard.

5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service by the Opposite parties in issuing the monthly bills of the broadband and internet connection provided to the Complainant in between August 2011 to February 2012 ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2. As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1 : There is no dispute that the Complainant had availed the broadband and internet connection of the Opposite party/Bharti Airtel company from 2009. There was no complaint about non-payment of the bills. He paid the monthly bills for Rs.1,198/- excluding VAS charges and taxes as supported by Ex-A1 and Ex-A2 of the periods August and July 2011.

8. It is also undisputed that the Subsequent bills as per Ex-A3, Ex-A8, Ex-A9, Ex-A10 & Ex-A11, for the periods August 2011 to February 2012 became the disputed bills. He complained to Opposite parties through e-mails and did the correspondence (28.10.2011) as per Ex-A4, (18.10.2011) Ex-A5, (14.10.2011) Ex-A6, (28.10.2011) Ex-A7. Later he sent the legal notice dated 01.03.2012 as per Ex-A12 by registered post supported by Ex-A13 to Ex-A17 receipts and acknowledgements.

9. Through e-mail as per Ex-A6 (14.10.2011) the Complainant stating about his payments for normal bills for Rs.1,500/- p.m, sought explanation about his enquiries with various officials of Opposite parties reiterating that his connection comes under “Unlimited Browsing Plan” for Rs.1,198/-. Through e-mail as per Ex-A5 (18.10.2011) the Opposite parties expressed his apology stating it as unfortunate incident assuring that his team would get back the earlier status of the connection. Through e-mail as per Ex-A4 (28.10.2011), the Complainant has reminded to sort out the issue of disconnection of telephone and internet connection arose, despite his resistance about the wrong billing. Through e-mail as per Ex-A7 (28.10.2011) the Opposite parties sought 72 hours to respond to the alleged problem.

10. Ex-A5 e-mail amounts to admission by the Opposite parties resulted in seeking sincere apology with assurance to get back earlier status. Ex-A7 e-mail amounts to reiteration of the apology seeking extension of 72 hours time to attend to the problem.

11. The monthly bills as per Ex-A3, Ex-A8, Ex-A9, Ex-A10, Ex-A11 which were showing Rs.22,883/-, Rs.24,072/-, Rs.31,859/-, Rs.4,571/-, Rs.92/- become the subject matter of dispute. The amount exceeding Rs.1,500/- in all the said bills is not explained by the Opposite parties to show how the said exceeded amount have to be made applicable to the monthly bills under “Unlimited Browsing Plan” for the amount Rs.1,198/-. The Opposite parties have also not explained how the so called adjustments of Rs.65,450/- were made to his bills when he has not made any such payments. No explanation was made by the Opposite parties about the total payments made by him for the said 5 stated bills with actual liability amount showing that he has made excess payment of Rs.2,900/-. Instead of giving explanation to the Complainant about the correction made or to be made in the issued monthly bills, the Opposite parties have gone to the extent of saying that it has shown mercy in favour of the Complainant as if it is a charity. The Opposite parties have not accepted their wrong entries made by them in the monthly bills. Though it has sought sincere apology has not placed the correct bill amount despite the requisition made by the Complainant through Ex-A6, Ex-A5 e-mails.

12. The above incident goes to show that the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in issuing the monthly bills as per Ex-A3, Ex-A8 to Ex-A11 for the period August 2011 to 2012 and though sought sincere apology has not rectified their mistake in issuing the correct bills or in restoring the connection with back status to the Complainant and thereby made inconvenience to the Complainant who has stated that he was depending on the browsing business for livelihood.  Accordingly the Consumer Dispute No.1 is answered in the affirmative

13. Consumer Dispute No.2 : The Opposite parties being the service provider instead of rectifying mistakes about the wrong entries, despite the requisition by the Complainant caused inconvenience to him and thereby made him to put under mental agony. Thereby it has become necessary to direct the Opposite parties to return the excess payments of Rs.2,900/- collected against the issued bills with a direction to pay the compensation also to the extent of Rs.10,000/- and the litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly the Complainant is entitled for the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is allowed partly. The Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are directed to return Rs.2,900/- to the Complainant with interest at 9% from the date of  disconnection till realization.  

          The Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- and the litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 9th day of December 2016).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite parties