Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/471

Mr. Basheer M - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M/sLazar Associates

10 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 11.03.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 10.05.2018

 

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.471/2015

DATED THIS THE10^thMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Basheer.M. S/o V.M.Moosa, Aged 50 years, R/at Anjaneya Residency, No.18/9, 1st Main, 5th Cross, Venketeswara Layout, S.G.Palya, DRC Post, Bangalore-29.   By Adv.Lazar& Associates	1	M/s BharatiAirtel Ltd., Registered Office at Bharti Crescent,1, Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070. Rep by its Chairman
		2	M/s BhartiAirtel Ltd., Circle Office:No.55, Divyasree Towers, Bannerghatta Main Road, Bangalore-560 076. Rep by its Manager.   By Sri.Adv.B.J.Mahesh

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the complainant as against the opposite parties directing topay Rs.500/- paid as advance amount for booking the landline connection, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards causing mental agony, tension, towards deficiency of service and cost of this complaint.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that the Complainant through the sales executive of the Opposite Party Mr.Balakrishna, had applied for an internet enabled landline connection from the Opposite Party on 9.12.2014 by paying an amount of Rs.500/- for the plan ‘Power599’ by furnishing the necessary documents. The Complainant submits that while booking the connection, he was assured by the Opposite Party that the phone will be installed within 3 working days from the date of booking and he had received a message from the Opposite Party on 10.12.2014. Even after the period of three days got lapsed, the Opposite Party did not install the landline connection and when complained through the customer care on 16.12.2014, the Complainant got a message from the Opposite Party stating that some delay has caused for the activation of the landline number 08041077133, which was allotted to the Complainant due to permission related/technical issues and the complaint has been registered with Ref.No.52105388. The Complainant submits that when there was no response from the Opposite Party, he contacted the sales executive of the Opposite Party several times and again he had responded with the same reply that the complaint will be taken care. On 2.1.2015, he again contacted the customer care executive and to the utter dismay and shock to the Complainant, the Complainant was informed by the customer care executive that the application of the Complainant for the landline connection has been cancelled and no reason was given for the cancellation. The Complainant never gave any instructions to cancel the application and till date, there is no communication from the Opposite Party regarding the complaint, nor provided the landline connection, nor returned the advance amount paid. The Opposite Party did not tell any reason for the cancellation of the application. Even after several personal visits to the office of the 1^st Opposite Party by the Complainant, the Opposite Party was not bothered to take care of the complaint and on several times, the Complainant was forced to wait for minutes to talk with the customer care people of the Opposite Party. The Complainant who earns a living by running a small bakery had to shut the shop and go to the office of the Opposite Party and suffered losses on business for no fault of the Complainant. The Complainant had applied for the internet enabled landline connection from the Opposite Party to provide swiping machine for payment through debit/credit card. In his bakery as several customers, time again demanding for the same. The deficiency of service of the Opposite Parties have resulted in many of the customers leaned away from the Complainant whose only livelihood is the income from the bakery establishment. The Complainant got issued a legal notice dt.7.1.2015 through RPAD for which the acknowledgement card has not been returned. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

3.       On receipt of the notice, the Opposite Parties did appear filed the version stating that the Complainant filed by the complaint is not maintainable in view of section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act. The Opposite Party submits the Complainant had applied for an internet enabled landline connection from the Opposite Party on 9.12.2014 by paying a sum of Rs.500/- and also by furnishing necessary documents. He has further contended that though he was assured that the connection would be provided within 3 days, the activation was not done despite the repeated contact made by the Complainant. No subscriber can claim any telephone connection by a private telecom operator as a matter of right. Providing a telephone connection more particularly the broadband/landline connection is depending on various factors like feasibility in the area, proper wiring of the area, laying down of cables, allocation of tag in the switch, configuration of STB, other technical requirements etc., Hence, the Opposite Party or that matter any service provider would not guarantee the provisions of services or prescribed service. In the event of service is unable to be provided due to technical non-feasibility a customer is entitled for providing the connection as a matter of right. Infact when a subscriber execute the customer enrolment form, he would be appraised about the terms and conditions mentioned in the overleaf in this regard. In the instant case Complainant has approached the Opposite Party and applied for broadband connection by paying Rs.500/-. However, upon inspection of the technical team of the Opposite Party, it was found that there was no technical feasibility in the area, where the intended broadband connection was sought for. Hence, this fact was duly informed to the Complainant and Rs.500/- was repaid to the Complainant vide cheque No.263455 dt.5.1.2015. Hence, there is no willful negligence or default on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party submits that it was assured that phone will be installed within 3 days from the date of booking is not true, as it was clearly informed that the connection is subject to technical feasibility. The Opposite Party admits that as the technical team was inspecting the feasibility, the Complainant was informed the same. However, it is denied that there was no response from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is not aware about avocation and purpose for which the Complainant has sought for the connection. However from the averments of the complaint, it is forthcoming that the Complainant has sought for the services for commercial activity. Hence, on this count itself complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is no willful default or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Further, the Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for in the complaint against the Opposite Party. On this ground and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

          4.       The Complainant as well as the Opposite Party filed their respective affidavit evidence, so also the written arguments. None of the parties got marked documents. Heard both sides.

 

          5.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

part of the OPs, if so, whether the Complainant isentitled for the

relief soughtfor?

 

          2) What Order?

 

          6.Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1 :Affirmative

Point No.2 :As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

          7.POINT NO.1:     The relief sought for by the Complainant is with regard to pay Rs.500/- paid by him as an advance for booking of internet enabled landline connection. In respect of this claim is concerned, section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act is not applicable for the simple reasons that the arbitration Clause is to be invoked in respect of disputed telephone bills.

          8.       The Opposite Party is not denied in respect of payment of Rs.500/- by the Complainant in respect of getting internet enabled landline connection. But the say of the Opposite Party is quite different that as a matter of fact, the Complainant did not sought for the initial amount paid by him or providing the connection more particularly broadband connection/landline connection. This specific contention taken by the Opposite Party is that at Para-5 stating that the Complainant has approached the Opposite Party and applied for broadband connection by paying Rs.500/-. However, upon inspection of the technical team of the Opposite Party, it was found that there was no technical feasibility in the area, where the intended broadband connection was sought for. Hence, this fact was duly informed to the Complainant, and Rs.500/- was repaid to the Complainant vide cheque No.263455 dt.5.1.2015. Hence, there is no willful negligence or default on the part of the Opposite Party. In this context, we placed reliance on the contents of the affidavit filed by the Complainant, who stated that the Opposite Party has falsely stating before the Forum that the deposit amount of Rs.500/- was duly paid under the said cheque dt.5.1.2015. Further, he submits that he never received any amount from the Opposite Party. This Forum by its order dt.28.4.2018 specifically directed to the Opposite Party to produce the better particulars in respect of the said cheque being sent for an amount of Rs.500/- to the Complainant, but not responded. In view of this matter, we come to the conclusion if the Opposite Party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the Complainant without any compensation, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently. Cost of litigation is fix at Rs.500/-.Accordingly, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

9.       POINT NO.2:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

        The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, it carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of paying an amount of Rs.500/- to get the internet connection, till the date of realization.

        The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs.500/- 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 10^thMay2018).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

         

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Sri.Basheer.M., who being the Complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc-1	Customer enrollment form
Doc-2	Legal notice
Doc-3	Postal receipt

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

D.Pradeep Reddy,who being the Opposite Party was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OPs

Doc-1

Customer enrollment form

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT