Date of Filing:15.01.2009<br /> Date of Order:14.08.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 141 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Khader Ali Ashfak<br /> S/o. Sri B.A. Mohammed<br /> R/at No. 74, N.K. House<br /> 4th Main, Muniramanna Block<br /> R.T. Nagar (Ganganagar)<br /> Bangalore 560 032 Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> M/s. Bharathi Airtel Ltd.<br /> Nandidurga Road, Bangalore<br /> Having its registered office at<br /> No. 55, ‘Divya Sree Towers’<br /> Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560007<br /> Rep. by its Manager Billing Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. <br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant is a customer of opposite party and he is using Airtel mobile connection bearing No. 9880862344 for the last two and half years. Initially he had opted for 199 plan. Complainant attracted by the opposite party bill plan 499 switched over from bill plan 199 to 499 and paid sum of Rs. 200/- i.e. switch over fee on 19.08.2008. Hence, since 19/08/2008 onwards the complainant is liable to pay the call charges under 499 billing plan only, and the bill plan 199 was discontinued. Even after that the complainant was asked to pay under bill plan 199. The complainant is supposed to pay 50% or even lesser the amount of the bills which he received. When this fact was brought to the notice of the collection department of the opposite party, the complainant was told that the extra amount charged / billed would be waived off and the complainant was asked to deposit Rs. 1,500/- and the complainant paid Rs. 1,500/- on 21.10.2008. On the very next week the out going and incoming calls under the above said mobile was disconnected without assigning any valid reasons. Complainant submits that as a result of this unfair trade practice and deficiency of service, the complainant has been put to lot of inconvenience, business loss. Complainant has sent legal notice on 22.11.2008. In spite of that opposite party sent a demand letter of the alleged outstanding dues. Hence, the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- damages, to issue the bill for the call charges under bill plan 499, to reactivate the above mobile service and to pay interest at 18% p.a. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Opposite party appeared through advocate and filed defence version stating that the opposite party never ask or insists its subscribers to opt for any particular rate plan. Even in the instant case complainant himself has sought for change of rate plan from 199 to 499. It is further submitted that any change of rate plan is followed by certain conditions. Before switch over to any new plan, the subscriber has to clear the entire dues with respect to his mobile connection chargeable till the end of the existing billing cycle. Unless the dues are cleared, the subscriber is not entitled for the change of bill plan. Even in the instant case, since, complainant had not cleared the existing bill amount, the migration of the rate plan was not given effect to. The opposite party submits that, the bills were issued as per the usage and existing tariff with respect to the mobile connection availed by the complainant. All other averments are denied.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us following points arise for consideration:<br /> Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. It is an admitted case of the parties that, the complainant is the subscriber of the opposite party. It is also admitted that the complainant had applied for change of plan. The complainant has produced receipt dated 19/08/2008 to show that he has paid Rs.2,000/- for change of plan from 199 to 499 by receipt No.9724. This fact has been clearly admitted by the opposite party. In view of the acceptance of amount of Rs.200/- from the complainant, the complainant is liable to pay all charges under 499 plan only and the plan 199 was discontinued. The opposite party is bound to give the facilities of plan 499 to the complainant from 19/08/2008, the date of payment of Rs.200/- for change of plan. The complainant has also written letter to the opposite party requesting for change of plan from 199 to 499 and he has requested the opposite party to do the needful in this regard. The copy of the letter dated 19/08/2008 has been produced. It is the grievance of the complainant that, even after change of plan he had received bills under the old plan. Therefore, he has been put to loss. The complainant has brought this fact to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party promised that extra bill would be waived off and complainant was asked to deposit Rs.1,500/-. On that assurance the complainant paid Rs.1,500/- on 21/10/2008 vide receipt No.375488. Even after payment of this amount it is unfortunate that opposite party disconnected the service to the mobile phone of the complainant on 21/10/2008 without assigning any reasons. Therefore, there was definitely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party in the defence version has clearly admitted that complainant has paid Rs.200/- on 19/08/2008 for change of plan along with covering letter. When this is the fact the opposite party could have given effect to the request of the complainant w.e.f., 19/08/2008 and the opposite party could have billed according to the plan 499. The complainant has paid Rs.1,500/- to the opposite party. In spite of paying that amount the opposite party disconnected the service to the mobile of the complainant. This is not proper on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is bound to reactivate the mobile service to the Airtel mobile connection bearing No.9880862344. The opposite party is bound to give the plan 499 to the complainant’s mobile since the complainant had requested for change of plan and for that he has also paid amount. The complainant has sought Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the loss caused to him due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. There is no basis to claim this exorbitant compensation amount. The complainant has not proved or establish as to whatever the loss suffered by him. Without there being any proper proof the claim of the complainant for award of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation is not liable to be accepted or entertained. However, the complainant is entitled to the relief of change plan from 199 to 499 and is also entitled the relief of reactivation of the mobile service. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party company is directed to give the facility and benefit of plan 499 to the complainant from 19/08/2008 in place of plan 199 and the opposite party company is further directed to reactivate the mobile service of the complainant immediately.<br /> 7. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.500/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr.,