DATE OF FILING : 29.12.2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.386/2015
Between
Complainant : Rohin C.,
Nellimala Estate,
Vandipperiyar,
Idukki.
(By Adv: S. Renjith)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. CEO,
Bharti Airtel Ltd.,
Bharti Cresent,
I Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phase I,
New Delhi – 110 070.
2. Nodal Officer,
Bharti Airtel Ltd. (a Bharti Enterprise)
Sh. Avenue, NH Bypass,
Kundanoor Jn.,
Maradu P.O.,
Kochi – 682 304.
(Both by Advs: S. Renjith
& Abhilashkumar K.T.)
3. Madhu,
Sethas Communications,
Bus stand, Vandiperiyar P.O.,
Idukki – 685 533.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Complainant availed a prepaid mobile connection of opposite party mobile company by attracting the headlines of the advertisement that, “hnfn¡q A¬enanäUv samss_Â tImfpI-Ä tIc-f-¯n-sehnsSbpw (Rs.649)” from a local seller of opposite party's mobile prepaid sim. He got mobile number as 9567435774. Immediately after getting the connection, he activated the sim by recharging it with an amount of Rs.50/-. As per the condition in the above said offer, he again recharged for an amount of Rs.649/- through an
(cont....2)
- 2 -
Airtel prepaid counter named Sathyam, in Vandiperiyar. But he get only 70000 seconds talk time. Immediately the complainant contacted the 1st opposite party's customer care centre and lodged a complaint. But no reply was received from the opposite party company and in the meantime the outgoing calls of the said mobile number is barred due to insufficient talk time. The complainant further submitted that he was recharged the mobile on 30.11.2015. But within a few days, he lost the entire talk time. Since the opposite party is a most leading mobile company, the opposite party acted against the prevailing norms of TRAI and cheated the customer as they stated in the advertisement and brochure. Due to the unexpected cut off of outgoing calls, the complainant had suffered a heavy loss and thereby caused damages at the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- and along with this amount, the complainant is entitled to get cost from the opposite party mobile company. Hence the complainant lodged this petition before this Forum for getting redressal of damages and other consequential reliefs.
On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed written version. In their version, opposite party contended that the complainant has not stated how he purchased the sim of Bharti Airtel Connection and opposite party admitted that they launched a scheme of Rs.649/- by which unlimited validity for 30 days in and around Kerala. But due to technical reasons the recharge could not be successful. But the complainant has not properly made any complaint with regarding the same. It was only a technical error caused to the server and not violated any regulation of TRAI. Opposite party added that, other than the complainant, some persons have also suffered the same error while recharging. Moreover, the opposite parties are ready to provide the scheme to the complainant by providing unlimited calls all over Kerala for the next month or as directed by the Forum at free of cost. The damages and compensation that allegedly sustained by the complainant is having no basis. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation as claimed.
The complainant and 2 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 3 and Exts.P1 and P2 were marked. Ext.P1 is the brochure of 1st opposite party company and Ext.P2 is the mobile recharging bill. From the defence side, no oral or documentary evidence is adduced.
(cont....3)
- 3 -
Heard both sides.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT :- The complainant himself conducted the case. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not acted as per the scheme offered through brochures and other media. Thereby the opposite parties cheated the complainant and other customers and acted against the norms of the TRAI. Complainant further pointed out that due to the non-availability of talk time as the opposite parties promised in Ext.P1 brochure, he lost a business offer and thereby suffered a loss of Rs.7,50,000/-. For establishing his version that he stated in his deposition, PWs2 and 3 were examined. He further stated that the depositions of PWs2 and 3 are sufficient to strengthen his version.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party stated that they are admitting the loss of talk time and it is only due to the technical error and they are ready to provide sufficient talk time to the complainant as the Forum directs. Moreover, the complainant not uttered a word in his complaint or through affidavit regarding the loss caused to him as alleged. No evidence is produced by the complainant except oral testimony of PWs2 and 3. Hence none of the prayer in the complaint is allowable.
We have carefully examined the complaint, proof affidavit and depositions alongwith the exhibits. There is no allegation in the complaint that the complainant is a building contractor and on the date of incident, the PW2 tried to contact the complainant and due to the failure in net work connection, the complainant lost a better opportunity of a construction contract and thereby caused a loss of the amount as stated in the complaint.
The specific case of the complainant is that, opposite parties not provided unlimited talk time for a period of 30 days by recharging it with an amount of Rs.649/- as per the scheme offered through Ext.P1 brochure. This act of the opposite party is a sheer deficiency in their service. At the
(cont....4)
- 4 -
time of cross examination also nothing has stated by the complainant regarding the relationship between PW2 and PW3 and not stated anything regarding the contract deal with PW2. By going through the complaint, proof affidavit and deposition of the complainant, we can see that the complainant is sticking on non-performance of the offer of the opposite party and nothing related to the net work connection.
At the same time, while going through the deposition of PW2, “hmZn ta ]Wn-IÄ GsäSp¯v AU-zm³kv XpI ssI¸-äp-¶-Xn-\mbn 2015 Unkw-_À 24-þ\v cmhnse Rm³ h¶p. hmZnsb t^mWn ]e-{]m-h-iyw hnfn-¨n«pw _Ô-s¸-Sm³ km[n-¨n-Ã. 11.30-þt\msS _n\p F¶ Bfn\v hmZn-bp-ambn \S-t¯WvS
_nkn-\kv sImSp-¯p. X¡-k-a-b¯v t^m¬ In«m-¯-Xp-sIm-WvSmWv Cu work thsdm-cmsf GÂ]n¨-Xv.
The deposition of PW3 is that, tdmlns\ hnfn-¨-t¸mÄ t^m¬ sse\n In«n-bn-Ã. Xncn¨v tdmln³ hnfn-¨-Xp-an-Ã.
From the deposition of both witnesses, we can see that PW2 failed to contact the complainant due to network problem and hence he entrusted the work to some one. Here it is very pertinent to note that the complainant has no case against the opposite party relating to the mobile connection or net work failure. His specific case is that opposite party acted against the condition of the brochure by not providing free talk time offer of 30 days in a recharge of Rs.649/-. Moreover, the versions of PWcs2 and 3 cannot be considered as a part of evidence without clear and cogent documents like work agreement, work estimate, approved plan etc., since as per the deposition of witnesses, the work that they intended to give to the complainant through an oral agreement for nearly one crore and the complainant may get an amount of Rs.10 lakhs to 20 lakhs from that work.
On the other hand, opposite party has admitted the allegation of the complainant regarding the failure in extending the offer as stated in the brochure or as they advertised. Also the opposite party admitted the fact that such type of deficiency in service has affected so many of their customers and it is only due to the technical error caused in their server. It may be so, opposite party cannot be evaded from their liability of causing damages to the public who used their net work service. (cont....5)
- 5 -
From the above said discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the opposite party failed to provide their service as stated in the Ext.P1 brochure and as admitted by the opposite party in their version. That caused some damages to the complainant and hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Therefore the complaint partially allowed. The Forum directs the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to pay Rs.10000/- jointly, as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and also pay Rs.3000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Rohin. C.
PW2 - Prince Joseph.
PW3 - Roy Joseph.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - brochure of 1st opposite party company.
Ext.P2 - mobile recharging bill.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
/ Forwarded by Order /
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
