STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                         U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                            (Additional Bench)

Bharti Airtel Limited, Unitech World Cyber Park, Sector 39, Tower A, 4th Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana (Delhi & NCR), India, Pin Code 122001 through its Power of  attorney holder Sh.Pushkal Chauhan, Deputy Lead (Legal & Regulatory) M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Rajiv Gandhi Technological Park, I.T.Park, Chandigarh. 

                                                                                                       …Appellant

                                         V e r s u s

Pushkar Bhardwaj,  #2174-D, Chandigarh Housing Board, Sector-63, Chandigarh.                                                                                                                         ...Respondent

Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 12.06.2023 passed by          District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.292/2020.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                        MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

Present   :       Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh.Pushkar Bhardwaj, Respondent in person.

 PER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

                       This appeal is directed against the order dated 12.06.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it allowed the complaint bearing No.CC/292/2020 by holding as under ;

 “Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OP has been proved. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Party to pay a compository amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for rendering deficient services and its indulgence into unfair trade practice, which also includes litigation expense.

         This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.7000/- apart from above relief.”

  2.     Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/respondent that he obtained connection of Airtel Xtream Fibre - Account No.017246032397 from the Opposite Party and  got it installed at his residence in Sector 46, Chandigarh on 30.5.2020 by making three month’s advance payment of Rs.2828/-.  It was alleged  that the official of Opposite Party assured the complainant that this connection can be shifted to other location/new address of the complainant, free of cost, within two days from such request.  Thereafter, on 30.6.2020, the complainant requested the OP Company for shifting of the said connection at his new address, followed by reminders as well as email.  However, when the OP did not pay any heed to the connection shifting request of the complainant, left with no option, he got it suspended.  Hence,  alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.

3.                  The Opposite Party/appellant in its  written reply before the Ld. Lower Commission while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the connection shifting request of the complainant received on 30.6.2020 was cancelled as the customer was not contactable and the new location of the complainant was not viable for shifting as that area was non-wired.  It was pleaded that   the area where customer required shifting was not viable for shifting, otherwise there was no occasion to lose the esteem customer. Other allegations were denied and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint. 

 4.                   On appraisal of the pleadings, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed the Complaint of  the  Respondent/ Complainant, as noticed in the opening para of this order.   

5.           Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party.

6.                       We have heard Learned Counsel for the appellant, respondent in person and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.              The  ground put forth in the  appeal is that the shifting request of the respondent could not be considered as firstly the respondent could not be contacted on his given mobile number and secondly the area where the connection was to be shifted was non-wired at the time when the shifting request was made. The complainant took the new connection when there was possibility of providing the connection. It is further contended that there was no deficiency in providing the service but still the Ld. District Commission awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- for not shifting the connection. Even there is a procedure for shifting the connection and the charges are also payable for shifting the connection to the new location. Thus, according to the appellant the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Commission is totally unreasonable. It was further contended that the order imposing the additional cost of Rs.7000/- is also totally arbitrary and against the natural justice of law.   On the other hand, the respondent/complainant contended that the order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission is well reasoned order and does not call for any interference.

8.                It is admitted case of the parties that Airtel Xtream Fibre connection was installed at the residence of the respondent/complainant in Sector-46, Chandigarh on 30.05.2020 by making three months’ advance payment of Rs.2828/-. It is also admitted case of the parties that on 30.06.2020, the respondent requested the appellant for shifting the said connection at his new address. However, when his request was not acceded to, he got it suspended.  The plea taken by the appellant is that where connection was to be shifted was not feasible for shifting as the new location was non-wired. There is also no dispute that the respondent applied for a new fiber broadband connection at his new location/address in July,2020 and the  same was provided on 28.07.2020, whereas the respondent received a message from the appellant regarding his previous request of shift connection stating “ We are sorry to hear that your airtel Xtream fibre connection request could not be proceeded”. The plea of the appellant that the respondent could not be contacted on his mobile is no excuse as it could communicate through other electronic media and  send text message or email etc. but after about one month of receiving shifting request it intimated to the respondent that the connection could not be shifted being the area non-wired. As such, the respondent remained bereft of  the use of connection/services of the appellant   but still he was charged for the said period. The respondent, being a student, must have suffered loss of study on account of non-shifting of the connection and wastage of precious time. 

 9.             The Ld. Lower Commission while allowing the complaint rightly observed that  the respondent was provided a new Fibre-broadband connection by the appellant Company itself at his new location/address in July, 2020 as is clear from Annexure C-6 and this fact has also not been disputed or denied by it in rebuttal or during arguments. The appellant failed to justify as to how it provided a new/fresh connection to respondent/complainant at new location in that very month i.e. July, 2020 when the said area was infeasible and non-wired area. Thus it is clearly made out that the appellant Company illegally & wrongfully denied the shifting of old connection of the respondent  to his new location by falsely stating it to be non-feasible being non-wired area, whereas a fresh connection was provided to him at fresh cost.  Thus the act & conduct of the appellant Company not only proves its deficiency in service but also proves its indulgence into unfair trade practice, as a result, the respondent  has to suffer mental agony, harassment, loss and has been forced to enter into present litigation.    

10.                In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view  that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of   evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.                

11.                     For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed,   with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.

12.                  Pending interlocutory  application, if any, also stands disposed of

13.                 Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

14.               The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.