Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/643/2015

Kuldip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.S Bhatia

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

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

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

Consumer Complaint  No	:	643 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	24.9.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	9.2.2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kuldip Singh resident of house No.171 phase 7 SAS Nagar Mohali.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

 

1. M/s Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. a company registered under the companies act, 1956 having its registered office at Bharti Cresent 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-ii, New Delhi 110070.

 

2. The Administrator, M/s Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. situated at plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, Chandigarh.

 

 

3. The Manager, M/s Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. situated at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  

 

DR. MANJIT SINGH                  PRESIDENT

S.S. Panesar                 PRESIDENT

MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

 

 

For Complainant	:	H.S. Bhatia, Adv.
For OPs	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv.

 

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that  the complainant has been using the postpaid  mobile connection NO.9815888222 of OPs for the last seven years and paying the bills regularly.  It is pleaded that in the year 2014 on the representation of the OPs the complainant got activated international calling special calling back/booster on his mobile through which the calling to USA and Canada was to be charged at a nominal rate of Rs.1.99 per minutes.  The complainant paid the bill of Rs.1738.55  in December, 2014.  However, in the month of July 2015 the complainant was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.4475.97 issued to him.  It is alleged that in the said bill the OPs charged him at normal pulse rate Rs.8.00 per minutes whereas he was to be charged with Rs.1.99 per minute as per the special calling pack of Rs.35.00.  The complainant raised the issue with the OPs and lodged complaint and made numerous requests and correspondence in this regard but nothing concrete was done by the OPs rather they issued another bill of Rs.12,012.18 and threatened the complainant that if the said bill is not paid immediately then his outgoing would be barred.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by the Ops the complainant  got a legal notice issued to the OPs but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite  Parties, seeking their version of the case.
3.      The OPs in their joint reply stated that the complainant was charged as per the scheme opted by him and the complainant is liable to pay all the charges levied as per the statement of account. It has been denied that the complainant was wrongly charged. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 

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

 

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.

 

6.                 On perusal of Annexure C-2 it is quite evident that the complainant has opted for the booster plan (US Canada @1.99) at the monthly charges of Rs.35/-. According to this plan the complainant was to be charged @1.99 per minutes for calling US/Canada whereas admittedly in the said very bill he has been charged @Rs.8 per minute on his ISD calls made to USA and Canada. Thus, it is obvious that the complainant was wrongly charged by the OPs @Rs.8/- per minute instead of charging as per booster plan @1.99 per minute.

 

7.     Thus, in our view charging of Rs.8 per minute instead of charging the complainant as per plan aforesaid is definitely unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.   The complainant vide his representation dated 31.7.2015 raised the issue with the OPs for correction of the bill but they did not do anything to this. It is held that once the OPs were required to charge the complainant as per booster plan then they cannot charge him at normal rate of Rs.8/- per minute, as such there is deficiency on the part of the OPs for wrongly charging the complainant and thereafter not correcting the bill despite  due representation by the complainant. 

 

8.                In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed  to:-

 

[a]  To issue fresh corrected bill charging as per booster plan referred to above to complainant and also refund the amount charged in excess from the complainant against the booster plan. 

 

 

[b]  To make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

[c]  To make payment of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

9.     The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr. No.[a] & [b] shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

10.     The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

9.2.2017                                   DR. MANJIT SINGH

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(S.S. PANESAR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER