Date of Filing – 29.04.2016

Date of Hearing – 21.04.2017

            The present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the instance of the Opposite Party no.1 Bharti Airtel Ltd. to impeach the Judgement/Final Order dated 30.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 312/2015.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by respondent no.1 Sri Shibnath Roy under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon OP nos. 1 & 2 to pay Rs.10,488/-, to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as litigation cost in favour of the complainant within one month from the date of order.

          The Respondent no.1 being Complainant initiated the complaint stating that on 07.07.2012 the complainant took connection of Airtel DTH services for two set top boxes – (1) STB No.03085653884, View Card No.00009853920 and (2) STB No.03085670172, View Card No.00009853919 issued by OP no.2 M/s. Payel Electronics.  The agreement contains the provision for a free service for one month against the Ultra Pack.  Few days before the expiry of the said period of one month, complainant received a message advising him to get it recharged.  Accordingly, complainant got it recharged for both the boxes from OP no.2 for one year with additional benefit of free services for 45 days on payment of Rs.5,868/-.  On 31.01.2013, complainant received a message that a further recharged for Rs.100/- had been made against the said connection.  The complainant got another message on 08.04.2013 as regards package updating indicating upward revision of the charge from Rs.160/- to Rs.180/- per month.  The complainant submits that the deficiency in services started from June, 2013 and he has spell out the deficiency on the part of the OP no.1 in Paragraph-3 of the petition of complaint.  The complainant alleged that he has made several correspondences with the opposite parties for redressal of his grievances and even he approached the Consumer Affairs Department but all his attempts went in vain.  Hence, the respondent no.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for following reliefs, viz. – (a) Rs.3,280/- as initial installation and connection charges; (b) Rs.5,868/- as cost of recharge made on 20.08.2012; (c) Rs.1,340/- cost of recharge made on 28.09.2013; (d) Rs.30,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and (e) litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- aggregating sum of Rs.42,488/-.

          The appellant being OP no.1 by filing a written version disputed the claim of the complainant.  The OP no.1 states that the complaint is not maintainable because the Bharti Telemedia was the service provider and non-joinder of Bharti Telemedia caused fatal to the case.  The OP no.1 has specifically submitted that when the complainant purchased the said two set top boxes, the bundle offer was running for a month only.  When the said offer was in existence, complainant purchased a recharge for a set top box and equal amount of balance was to be provided to another set top box.  After the said period was closed/expired when the complainant purchased the same recharge, he was not entitled to get the same benefit of the same offer for his two set top boxes.   The OP no.1 has submitted that they never offered the same for the said period to the complainant.

          After assessing the evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned Judgement/Final Order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the appellant and respondent no.2 as indicated above.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the OP no.1 has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have heard Mr. Himadri Chakraborty and Mr. Barun Prasad, Ld. Advocates for the appellant and respondent no.1 respectively and also scrutinised the materials on record.

          Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record, it would reveal that the respondent no.1 has set up two set top boxes from Airtel DTH service.  Admittedly, on 07.07.2012 the respondent no.1 took connection in those two set top boxes being STB Nos.03085653884 and 03085670172 respectively.  The evidence on record also goes to show that the said installation was made by the respondent no.2 and they received money after issuing a receipt to that effect.  The record further goes to show that for the purpose of recharge of the set top boxes, the respondent no.1 has deposited Rs.5,868/- without bearing any date of the cash receipt and also Rs.1,340/- on 28.09.2013.  According to the respondent no.1, the whole trouble started from the month of June, 2013.

         In Paragraph-3 of the petition of complaint, complainant specified the deficiencies in the following manner:-

Date of message                                   Contents:

26.06.2013          Balance in complaint accounts Rs.132/-

                             with a warning of expiry of currency after

                             5 days.  Although still there were more

                             than 4 months left for the currency/

                             validity of the earlier recharge to expire

                             (the currency was due to expire only in the   

                             middle of October, 2013).

29.06.2013          only two days left must be recharged on or

                             before 01.07.2013

01.07.2013

02.07.2013           currency of the connection already expired

                              service disconnected – advice to get further

                              recharge done

from 03.07.2013 to        currency of the connection already expired

20.09.2013 messages   service disconnected advised to get

received on 15 occasions  further recharged done.

        There is no specific denial against those allegations.  The messages received from the appellant clearly goes to show that a serious confusion created by baffling and vexatious messages leading to confusion in the mind of the respondent no.1. 

        Ld. Advocate for the appellant has drawn my attention to the Memorandum an Articles of Association of Bharti Telemedia Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. and submitted that Bharti Telemedia Ltd. was the service provider but when the respondent no.1 did not implead Bharti Telemedia Ltd. as a party to the proceeding, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1 on the other hand has drawn my attention to Customer Relationship Form which speaks that Airtel digital TV issued the set top boxes in which Bharati Telemedia Ltd. was the communication address.  In the original written version, the appellant/OP no.1 did not take such plea and the plea of non-joinder of necessary party has been taken by filing an additional written version which appears to be an ‘after thought’.  Moreover, Ld. Advocate for the respondent no.1 has also submitted that Bharti Airtel already merged mobile, DTH and telemedia business and in this regard a report collected from NET has been filed.  In any case, when the customer relationship form indicates that Bharti Telemedia is a sister firm of Bharti Airtel Ltd., there was no infirmity in non-impleading the Bharti Telemedia Ltd. in the instant case.

       It is quite apparent that regarding the alleged deficiencies, the appellant could not give any satisfactory explanation.  In the Memorandum of Appeal, it has been mentioned that the Ld. District Forum has adopted pick and chose method in appreciating the evidence of respondent no.1/complainant and did not consider any other aspect.  The appellant along with the Memorandum of Appeal only annexed the affidavit filed by the complainant and did not file the reply against the questionnaire set forth by OP no.1.  Similarly, OP no.1 has not filed copy of evidence on affidavit filed by them before the Ld. District Forum or the reply given by the OP no.1 company against the questionnaires of the complainant.  Therefore, an adverse presumption should be drawn against the appellant.

      The complainant/respondent no.1 has made all out effort for redressal of his grievances and finding no other alternative, he approached the Consumer Affairs Department of Govt. of West Bengal seeking relief.  The Consumer Affairs Department has made an effort but could not achieve any result and in this regard the letter given by the CA Deptt. to the respondent no.1 dated 20.01.2015 clearly indicates that the pre-litigation mediatory procedure has been failed due to non-cooperation of Bharti Airtel Ltd.

       After giving due consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties and in view of the discussion recorded herein above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in passing the order impugned.  In other words, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.

       Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on contest.  There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

       The impugned Judgement/Final Order is hereby affirmed.

     The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas at Barasat for information.