Date of Filing:14.08.2009<br /> Date of Order:31.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <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: 1979 OF 2009<br /> <br /> M.S. Mallappa<br /> 66/1, 7th Cross, 8th Main<br /> R M V Extension<br /> Bangalore 560 080 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Bharati Airtel Ltd.<br /> Circle Office : Maruti Infotech Center<br /> Block A, West Wing, 11/1 & 12/1<br /> Koramangala Inner Ring Road<br /> Amarjyothi Layout, Dinnur<br /> Bangalore 560 071 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, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has been a post paid customer of the opposite party service since the very inception of Airtel in Bangalore and was allotted Mobile number 9845010527. The complainant purchased an India Calling Card from the opposite party for his use during his visit to the USA. The details of the said card are as follows:<br /> Account No. 9821416633<br /> Account password 2495<br /> Portal User ID 612072533<br /> Access No. 1-877-247-4047<br /> The complainant further submits that he visited the USA during the period of 19.11.2008 to 17.12.2008 and the complainant followed procedure given by the opposite party for the use of the India Calling Card to call subscribers in India during the period of stay in the USA. The opposite party sent a bill dated 25.12.2008 to the complainant for a period 23.11.2008 to 22.12.2008 which the complainant received on 28.12.2008. The complainant was utterly shocked and surprised when he received the said bill for Rs.72,636.77 of which Rs.63,472.81 has been shown against International roaming charges. The complainant submits that he took up the matter with the Nodal Officer of the opposite party at Airtel Telemedia Service by e-mail dated 28.12.2009 giving all details of the India Calling Card and requested the Nodal Officer to look into the bill for the period 23.11.2008 – 22.12.2008 which reflected Rs.63,472.81 towards International roaming charges. The complainant received a reply from the opposite party Nodal Officer on the same day acknowledging the complainant e-mail and informing that a valid solution would be provided within 10 working days. The complainant further submits that on 29.12.2008 he received an e-mail from opposite party Nodal Officer desk Airtel Tele media services stating that the complaint had been forwarded to Nodal officer kk@airtel.in for further action. However even after the lapse of 10 working days there was no reply or solution from the opposite party’s Nodal officer to the complainant. The complainant again wrote a letter dated 10.01.2009 to the Accounts Officer of the opposite party informing him that since his grievance was not being redressed he was making the payment of Rs.11,000/- under protest against the said bill to avoid the disconnection of the mobile connection towards the local calls and SMS charges during that period. The complainant further submits that he had received another Airtel bill dated 25.01.2009 for the subsequent period of 23.12.2008 to 22.01.2009 which reflected monthly charges of Rs.2,540.46 and total amount payable Rs. 64,927.23 which is inclusive of Rs.61,637/- being the disputed amount. The complainant promptly cleared the monthly charges amounting of Rs. 2,540.46 vide Cheque No. 418274 dated 29.01.2009. The complainant submits that the opposite party had not addressed his grievance but had gone ahead and disabled his connection without carrying out a fit and proper enquiry. The complainant is a heart patient having recently undergone open heart surgery which fact was telephonically brought to the notice of the opposite party officials has been put to untold problems due to the arbitrary action of disabling his mobile connection. The complainant further submits that the opposite party’s collection agents had started visiting the complainant’s residence and misbehaved with his family members causing undue embarrassment to the complainant and his family. This action is highly deplorable as the opposite party is following unfair trade practices. The complainant being unable to withstand the harassment caused by the opposite party has paid the disputed amount of Rs.61,637/- by ICICI Bank Cheque No.418286 under protest without prejudice to his rights to take legal action against the opposite party. The complainant wrote a letter dated 24.03.2009 regarding the same to the Customer Care Manager of the opposite party which has been duly acknowledged by the Customer Care Manager on 26.3.2009. Since no positive steps had been taken by the opposite party to resolve the issue the complainant caused a legal notice to be issued dated 11.5.2009 clearly spelling out the sequence of the events and calling upon the opposite party to repay the sum of Rs. 61,637/- which is the disputed amount together with the interest @ 12% and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards trauma, mental agony and pain caused to the complainant. The said legal notice was sent by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due which was served on the opposite party on 15.5.2009 and the acknowledgement card was returned to the complainants advocate. The opposite party has not bothered to furnish a reply to the legal notice. The complainant humbly submits that the facts detailed above clearly demonstrates that there is total Deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party due to which the complainant had to undergo severe financial strain, mental agony, trauma and suffering. Hence, the complainant prayed that the opposite party be directed to pay disputed amount paid by the complainant on 26.03.2009 of Rs. 61,637/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony.<br /> 2. After admitting the complaint notice has been issued to opposite party through RPAD. Notice sent from this forum returned with postal endorsement “refused return to sender”. When the case was set for appearance of the opposite party on 08.10.2009 the opposite party remained absent. Nobody appeared on behalf of opposite party. The refusal of notice was held as sufficient service and therefore, the opposite party was placed exparte.<br /> 3. Arguments of the counsel for the complainant heard and perused the complaint and documents.<br /> 4. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the case made by the complainant. The complainant has pleaded that they took up the matter with the nodal officer of the opposite party. But there is no reply or solution from the nodal officer. There was no positive response to resolve the issue raised by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant caused legal notice to the opposite party calling upon the opposite party to refund Rs. 61,637/- which is a disputed amount with interest and compensation. For the legal notice also the opposite party has not bothered to give reply. Therefore, the complainant was forced to approach this fora for getting justice. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of consumers. It is very unfortunate on the part of opposite party that inspite of complainant bringing to notice of opposite party the deficiency in service and taking the matter to the nodal officer no proper response was sent to the complainant. The matter was not resolved by the opposite party. This is not proper approach on the part of service provider. The opposite party could have promptly taken steps in resolving issues raised by the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was forced to issue legal notice. Inspite of service of legal notice the opposite party has not given proper response and the matter was not resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. Therefore, complainant was forced to approach this fora for getting justice. The complaint deserves to be allowed with a direction to the opposite party to resolve the issue and decide the points which had been raised by the complainant in his complaint. The nodal officer is bound to ensure resolution of complaint of the customer within 10 working days. But, unfortunately, in this case though the matter was taken to the nodal officer by the complainant through e-mail the nodal officer has failed to resolve the issue and no communication is sent to the complainant in respect of resolution of the dispute raised by the complainant. Therefore, proper and just order that could be passed in this case is that the opposite party should be directed to address the issues raised by the complainant and resolve the dispute and communicate the resolution of the dispute to the complainant. The complainant has paid the disputed amount of Rs. 61,637/- under protest and now he seeks refund of that amount with interest and compensation. This request of the complainant deserves to be looked into by the opposite party. The nodal officer should resolve the issue and communicate his decision to the complainant. If the matter is settled to the satisfaction of the complainant by nodal officer then the matter ends there. In case the complainant is not satisfied with the resolution of the dispute by the nodal officer / opposite party he will be free to take up the matter with the Consumer Forum for appropriate relief. With this observation the complaint deserves to be disposed off with a direction to the opposite party to resolve the dispute raised by the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is allowed in the following terms:<br /> a. The opposite party is directed to resolve the dispute raised by the complainant in respect of disputed bill amount paid by the complainant either through nodal officer or by amicable settlement and negotiation with the complainant.<br /> b. The opposite party is directed to communicate the decision or resolution of the dispute to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.<br /> 6. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br />