DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C.-406/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
24.064.2016 05.07.2016 25.04.2018
Complainant: Sri. Sumanta Kumar Banerjee, Chartered Accountant,
APS Associated, 3-C Madan Street, First Floor, Kolkata-700 072.
Vs.
Opposite Parties:-1) The Appellate Authority Bharti Airtel Limited,
West Bengal, Circle Office, Infinity Building, 5th Floor,
Block-GP, Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Sector-V,
Kolkata-700 091.
2) The Nodal officer Bharti Airtel LimitedWest Bengal,
Circle Office, Infinity Building, 5th Floor, Block-GP,
Salt Lake Electronics Complex, Sector-V, Kolkata-700 091.
3) Managing Director, Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent,
1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II,
New Delhi-110070.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………….President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
FINAL ORDER
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he is a user of Airtel Data Card no-8585883690 since February, 2015 and using the same regularly against payment of regular bills. There is no outstanding due against the above data card. On 16.05.2016 the Complainant was at Darjeeling regarding his professional assignment and lodged a complaint from therein regarding very law speed causing him unable to download the attachments in his e-mail, but there was no result. When he contacted with an official of the OPs, he advised him to wait for 3-4 days so that the expert persons can attend at the locality to solve the problem and necessary actions. The Complainant told the official of the OPs that he has come at Darjeeling for professional engagement to do the job based on internet and as such he cannot wait for 3-4 days as per advice. The Complainant had repeatedly requested the official of the OPs to do the needful so that he can avail of the service of the data card and finish the professional work in time. In spite of repeated request made by the Complainant the OPs have neglected to resolve the problem. So according to the Complainant the OPs have acted in a very negligent manner with him and deliberately refused to provide due service in respect of the said data card, which amounts to deficiency in service. By issuing letter upon the OPs dated 17.05.2016 the Complainant demanded compensation amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- from the OPs due to deficiency in service, which caused harassment, mental agony, professional and financial loss etc. Further letter was issued on 21.05.2016. On 20.05.2016 the Complainant was at Siliguri regarding his professional assignment and faced similar problem as earlier in respect of the said data card. At about 2.30 to 3.00 p.m. the complainant made a call in the toll free number of the OPs from Bagdogra Airport in order to lodge a complaint of poor service of the network. The concerned official replied that the OPs will not accept/record any further complaint from him. The Complainant told that the OPs are bound to provide services to its customer and to record the complaint as lodged by its customer. After hearing the above the OPs threatened him stating the service of the questioned data card will be discontinued. On and from 21.05.2016 the connection of the said data card has been suspended by the OPs without any notice and without any fault on his part. After getting the letter of the Complainant the OPs have restored the connection. There was no valid or cogent reason for suspension of the service of the data card; the OPs have done the same illegally, arbitrarily, whimsically and with high handed attitude, which deprived the Complainant from his legitimate right. The act of the OPs amount to unfair, unreasonable and deficiency in service. Another letter was issued by the Complainant claiming compensation for Rs.10,00,000/-. As his grievance have not been redressed by the OPs before coming to this Ld. Forum, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- due to deficiency in service for which he had to face harassment, mental agony and pain, litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to him.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing conjoint written version contending that the allegations as made by the Complainant in the complaint has no basis at all as the same has not been corroborated by adducing any cogent documents. As the Complainant was changing his place very frequently, the OPs could not provide any service to resolve his grievance. Moreover the service hired by the Complainant not for his personal use, rather it was availed of for the purpose of his company, where he was associated, hence the service can be termed as commercial in nature. In the complaint in two paragraphs the Complainant has claimed two different amount of compensation i.e. Rs.50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively. The Complainant has failed to corroborate such claim by producing any document and why the amount was deducted by him in the same complaint, no reason has been assigned. Therefore the claim for compensation can be said as concocted and frivolous, having no basis at all. According to the OPs the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of their respective contentions. The Complainant has filed supplementary affidavit. Both parties have filed BNA. The Complainant has relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC in the First Appeal No-A/443/2016, Dated 27.12.2016. Upon perusal of the said judgment it is seen by us that fact of the said case and the instant are almost same and identical in nature.
After giving due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties it is seen by us that the allegation as made out by the Complainant has not been controverted by the OPs in the written version. It is true that after availing of service from the OPs the Complainant had to face severe problem while he was at Darjeeling regarding his professional assignment. At that point of time due to low speed of the service in respect of data card the Complainant could not complete his work and download the attachments in his e-mail. He contacted with the official of the OPs who advised him to wait for 3 to 4 days so that the expert persons can attended at the locality to solve the problem and necessary actions. It was told by the Complainant to the said official that it was not possible for him to wait 3 to 4 days. Such inaction on behalf of the OPs reveals that the OPs have failed to take any proper step for redressal of the grievance of the Complainant then and there upon receipt of the complaint. In spite of repeated requests made by the Complainant the OPs did not take any step to solve the problem. Such action of the OPs can be termed as deficiency in service as inspite of availing of service from the OPs against payment of consideration amount; the Complainant did not get proper service from the OPs. Not only that while the Complainant was at Siliguri then also he had to face similar problem with the questioned data card and at that point of time the OPs also did not take any step for removal of the grievance of the Complainant.
Though it is stated by the complainant that he was threatened by the OPs but in this respect no evidence is adduced by the Complainant in support of his contention. We have noticed that the complainant had prayed for compensation form he OPs prior to filing of this complaint to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- (letter dated 17.05.2016), but in the letter dated 21.05.2016 the Complainant reduced the compensation amount from the Rs.50,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. In the petition of complaint the Complainant has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. In this respect we are to say that why the Complainant has prayed for a hefty amount towards compensation from the OPs, where no cogent evidence is adduced by the Complainant in respect of such claim, hence we are not inclined to allow the prayer as made out by the complainant in respect of compensation amount. It can be said that such claim has no basis at all as how far the Complainant had to face trouble due to deficiency in service of the OPs; there is no iota of evidence in this record. However, admittedly the Complainant had to face some trouble while he was at Darjeeling and Siliguri. For this reason in our opinion the Complainant is entitled to get some amount as compensation from the OPs.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is order that the complaint is allowed in part on contest without any cost. The OPs are directed either severally or jointly to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the Complainant as compensation within 45 days from the date of passing of this judgment, in default the Complainant will be at liberty to put the decree in Execution as per provisions of Law.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
