Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/280/2017

D.Arun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Bharati Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V.Veeramani

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

                                                                                 Date of Complaint Filed: 01.09.2017

Date of Reservation      : 21.07.2022

Date of Order               : 26.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.280/2017

TUESDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF JULY 2022

 D.Arun Kumar,

S/o. K.Duraiswamy,

No.8/13, Ganapathy Colony,

Sri Ram Nagar,

Selaiyur,

Chennai – 600 073.                                                         ... Complainant               

 

..Vs..

Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

Rep. by its Regional Manager,

Head Office No.101, Oceanic Towers,

Santhome High Road,

Chennai.                                                                     ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S. Veeramani

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Counsel for Complainant to treat the Written arguments as Oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member -I, Thiru.T.R.SIVAKUMHAR, B.A.,B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and pain caused to the Complainant on account of the actions of the Opposite Party.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

            The complainant had purchased a Airtel 4G HOTSPOT Wi-Fi Modem, on 15.04.17 No.7550255166 from authorized agent of the Opposite party namely M/s. ALPHA, No.61, Lakshmipuram Bus Stop, Mudichur Road, West Tambaram, Chennai - 600 045. The complainant had opted for the scheme where he had to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- in advance and was offered 6 months free internet package amounting to Rs.650/- per month and the instrument was given free of cost. After 2 months of purchase of the said Modem, he received mail that a sum of Rs.700/- was due towards the above mentioned number. On 08.07.17 upon non-payment of the above mentioned sum the complainant number was suspended Every day complainant received calls from Airtel collection agent at odd hours and when he questioned the very rational of the bill being claimed from him the call used to be cut by the Collection agent with a promise to get back after verifying the facts, which never happened. The complainant was banged day after day both by Airtel collection agents and the automated telephonic calls seeking the nonexistent dues from him. His airtel modem was deactivated by the opposite party from 09.07.17 onwards, inspite of the fact that he had paid a sum of Rs.4,000/- in advance towards his 6 months net usage. Inducing him to pay 6 months net charges in advance with a promise to provide hassle free net connection for 6 months and subsequently disconnecting the net connection demanding further payment is nothing but a fraud being played upon him. Further the above act is nothing but a clear case of deficiency of service. He being an advocate by profession had purchased the above said Wi-Fi Modem in the above said Scheme towards his professional use was put to untold hardship on account of the abrupt disconnection of his internet services at his office. On account of opposite parties acts of abrupt termination of the net services it resulted in untold mental agony to complainant as his e-mail communication at his office was totally cut. Now he has started receiving e-mail messages from opposite party stating that he has to pay a sum of over Rs.800/- immediately towards his non-existent dues. He was perplexed as to how the above dues were arrived by the opposite party at the first instance when he had already paid up for his 6 months net usage in advance. All the efforts of the complainant towards putting some sense in the customer care agents of the opposite party went in vain as they were not interested in listening to any rationale argument. Disgusted with the actions of the opposite party he issued a legal notice dated 29.07.17 to the opposite party calling upon them to restore his service connection. The opposite party received the complainants notice on 02.08.17, but till date they have neither replied to the complainants notice nor restored his data card service connection. The opposite party with the full knowledge of the consequences of their actions have wantonly cut the service connection to the complainant illegally and thus caused deficiency of service. The opposite party have caused to untold mental agony to the complainant by making him run from pillar to post to get his service restored. The opposite party is liable to compensate the Complainant for both deficiency of service and mental agony. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5 were marked.

4.      The Opposite Party did not appeared before this Commission in spite of sufficient notice served on them.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed in the Complaint and for any other reliefs?

Point No.1:-

        The Complainant had availed 4G Hotspot wi-fi modem of the Opposite Party through its authorised agent M/s.Alpha, as evident from Ex.A-1, being the receipt for a sum of Rs.4000/-. The said authorised  agent as per the plan broucher marked as Ex.A-2 had sold the said modem on the plan of free internet package for 6 months amounting to Rs.650/-. But the Opposite Party immediately after two months of the above purchase in the said offer, had sent a mail to the Complainant claiming Rs.700/- and thereafter on 08.07.2017 had suspended his connections and had made calls through their agents for the outstanding payment, inspite of agreed to provide 6 months free internet the claim of outstanding made constrained the Complainant to issue a legal notice dated 29.07.2017 to the Opposite Party, as found in Ex.A-3, and Ex.A-4 is the acknowledgement card for the receipt of Ex.A-3 by the Opposite Party, and the Opposite Party had not responded to the said legal notice, Ex.A-3, instead had sent a bill dated 30.08.2017 marked as Ex.A-5, wherein claimed a sum of Rs.936/- for the period 11.07.2017 to 10.08.2017.

        On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made above, this Commission holds that the Opposite Party instead of providing the Complainant the offers agreed to him at the time of availing its service under Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 and instead of restoring the connection after verifying the status and details of plan under which payment was made by the Complainant, had sent a bill as found in Ex.A-5 even for the non-usage period, when the connection was suspended by the Opposite Party, clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

 

Point No.2:-     

     As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Party, the Opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and also to pay of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and pain caused to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.2 is answered.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and pain caused to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of the order, failing compliance, the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts from the Opposite party, together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realisation.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.     

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 26^th of July 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	15.04.2017	Bill
Ex.A2	-	Scheme Brochure
Ex.A3	29.07.2017	Legal notice issued by Complainant
Ex.A4	02.08.2017	Postal Delivery Report
Ex.A5	12.08.2017	E-Mail Bill from Opposite Party

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT