DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.242/2015

Sh. Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi

Office Address:

181 FLT, Air Force      
C/o  03 Wing, Air Force,

Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010

Residential Address:

Lord Ganesha Apartment Flat No.1,

Ward-08, 886/8, Andheria Mode,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.      Mr. Sagar Chavra

Mobile Care, 887, Main Market,

Mehrauli (Sarai), New Delhi-110030

2.      M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd.

          Corporate office:

          H-5/12, Qutab Ambience

Near Qutab Minar, Mehrauli,

New Delhi-110030

Relationship Centre Address

Shop No.21, Main Market,

Malviya Nagar,

New Delhi-110030                                     ….Opposite Parties

                                                      Date of Institution  :  11.09.15             Date of Order          : 13.04.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to “pay the purchase value of the product” and services to be redeemed or refund to him as the product is of no use to him or to establish a proper connection immediately at his residence alongwith the full validity of the recharge amount of Rs.299/- & Rs.110/- “as offered the specific service” and to award Rs.25,000/- to him as compensation for physical and mental agony suffered by him.

As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant has been currently dealing in trading for last 3 years and his earning stands position of 13000 USD. In the written statement the OP has taken plea that admittedly being personnel of the Indian Air Force the complainant cannot indulge in another business like online currency trading. However, since this pointed has not been raised during the course of arguments and for the reasons given hereinbelow we are not dealing with this point.

Complainant has stated that he had purchased an Airtel 4G Dongle from OP No.1 on 06.08.15 for a consideration of Rs.1500/- which was activated by OP No.2 on 13.08.15. The complainant recharged  the 4G Sim on 13.08.015 at around 19.30 hrs. for an amount of Rs.299/- and he was offered 1GB data alongwith certain talk times with validity of 28 days but the same was not activated practically but the SIM got recharged for an amount of Rs.299/-. When the complainant approached the OP No.1, he advised him to further recharge the SIM for an amount of Rs.110/. Complainant asked one of the customer care executives to do the needful to take back the dongle but he was not paid any attention. When he told that he will approach the consumer forum then he  was told that he had a freedom to do what he wants to do. On 13.08.15 he received a SMS message from OP No.2 that the matter has been resolved and the no. has been activated.  On 16.08.15 believing on this message the complainant tried to get access to the internet but it was not connected. It is submitted that the OPs charged Rs.299/- and Rs.100/- but it was not activated and the validity of 28 days was expired.  Hence, claiming “deficiency in after sale service” the present complaint for the above stated prayers.

None appeared on behalf of the OP No.1.

OP No.2 in the written statement has inter-alia stated that   the complainant has taken a Sim No.9560650407 from the OP No.1. This is a prepaid number which was activated on 13.08.15 after the carried out telephone verification on the same date. It is denied that the OP No.1 has been informed by the customer care of OP No.2 that the number of the complainant will be activated within 2 hours. Without verification number cannot be activated.  As per the record of OP No.2 the charge of Rs.110/- was done only on 21.08.15 for main balance after the existing balance was exhausted. The recharges were done by the complainant out of his own free will and he was given due benefits for the same. It is submitted that 4G and 3G services are different. The speed and quality of both the services is different. 4G can be used only on a 4G Sim Card and in a 4G compatible equipment with LTE network to be selected manually by the customer. Only data plans have been kept the same. Connectivity and speed of the interwork is entirely dependent upon the location and availability of network coverage, technical, feasibility and fulfillment of technical requirements. For instance the complainant cannot blame OP No.2 for poor coverage if his device is located in an area that has week or no network coverage. Consequently no service provider guarantee last mile connectively. OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit   in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Amit Bhatia, AR has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.2.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2.

We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the complainant and OP No.2.

During the course of proceeding dated 08.09.16 OP No.2 was ready to reimburse the dongle amount of Rs.1500/- plus Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant towards full and final settlement which amount was not acceptable to the complainant. A request for adjournment was made on behalf of the OP No.2 to seek further instruction.  On 30.09.16 the counsel for OP No.2 had brought Rs.7000/- in cash to be paid to the complainant towards full and final settlement but however, the complainant was not ready to accept this amount in any circumstance.

The main prayer of the complainant was to refund the dongle amount of Rs.1500/- and to activate the connection immediately. As stated hereinabove, the OP No.2 was ready to refund an amount of Rs.7,000/- including the cost of dongle and compensation  but the complainant did not accept the same.  

In our considered opinion as OP No.2 was ready to refund the amount of dongle Rs.1500/- plus Rs.5500/- towards compensation this is the proper and adequate amount towards deficiency in service (if any) on the part of  OP No.2.  Hence, we

hold that the offer made on behalf of the OP No. 2 was perfectly justified.

In view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint to that extent and direct the OP No.2 to pay Rs.7,000/- (Rs.1500 the price of the dongle and Rs.5500/- towards compensation)  to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP No.2 shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.7000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 13.04.18.