Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/442/2015

K.Thanikasalam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive officer /Director., Barti Air Tell Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.G.Thangavel

16 Aug 2022

ORDER

                                                     Date of Complaint Filed : 03.11.2015

                                                     Date of Reservation      : 18.07.2022

                                                     Date of Order               : 16.08.2022

 

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.442 /2015

TUESDAY, THE 16^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

K.Thanikasalam,

No L-96, 11 Main Road,

Kamaraj Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-600 041.                                                        ...Complainant

-Vs-

 

1. The Chief Executive Officer/Director,

    BARTI AIR TEL LTD,

    101, Bharathi Towers,

    Santhome, Chennai-600 028.

 

2. The Silver Line,

    No. 12, M.G.Road,

    Sasthri Nagar, Adyar,

    Chenani-600 020.

 

3. The Customer care Officer,

    AIRTEL Head Office,

    Bharathi Towers,

    Santhome,

    Chennai-600 028.                                              ..Opposite parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                 : M/s. G. Thangavel

Counsel for the 2^nd Opposite Party         : Exparte

Counsel for the 1^st & 3^rdOpposite Parties  : M/s. Iyer& Thomas

 

        On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant and the Opposite Parties 1 and 3 the written arguments being treated as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the 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 revoke the suspecsion of DTH Digital TV Connection of the Complainant under customer ID No.3008029012 of AIRTEL and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- payable towards the compensation for deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for the continued mental agony sustained by the Complainant along with cost.

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

The Complainant had Two TV connections of Airtel Digital T.V. being the customer ID No.3008029012 and the Complainant had paid the amount accordingly as follows:

Sl.No	Application No.	Date	Amount
1.	29482	28.02.2014	1750.00
2.	29486	28.02.2014	1900.00
3.	30465	29.03.2014	2200.00
4.	36354	06.11.2014	5170.00
	Total		11020.00

 

        The above said amounts were paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party for the provisions of package of first connection was for the South value sports and the second connection was for the South Max.  The first connection South values sports was determined for the sum of Rs.2200/- and the same is paid on 29.03.2014 and the second connection package was South Max for one year determined for the sum of Rs.1750/- and the same was paid on 28.02.2014. The Airtel Digital TV official called him to pay for two connections in total amounting to Rs.5170/- for one year from 06.11.2014. But he received a SMS that the first above said connection would be suspended due to low balance amount and the first digital TV, DTH connection was suspended from 20.8.2015 without any valid reason and the second connection is continued. Having aggrieved with the above said act of dis-connection of first digital TV DTH connection, he contacted customer care office over phone No.04444448080 and 08130081300 but no proper information given in this regard. Hence he had to go to the head office of the Opposite parties at Santhome and met one customer care officer on 24.8.2015 and the said officer informed him that the amount of Rs.2200/-, of Rs. 1750/- and the sum of Rs.1900/- were not accounted and told the Complainant to contact the 2^nd Opposite Party. He met one of the official on 25.08.2015 who is dealing with the DTH Digital TV whereas the said official is not in a position to inform him correctly and neglected to do the needful in this regard which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Due to the deficiency on your part of officials of the opposite parties, he had to undergo the undue hardship and suffering of mental agony along with family members including school going children which cannot be compensated by any means. The unlawful act of suspending first DTH Digital connection and is required to be restored immediately hence legal notice dated 01.09.2015 was sent to the opposite parties, in spite of receipt they failed and neglected to do the needful as demanded by him which is the mandatory requirement of the opposite parties and the same is enforceable in the eye of law. The opposite parties even though aware of the negligence on their part had failed to discharge their obligation which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

 

        The Complainant had availed two Airtel Digital Tv connections under Customer ID No.3008029012. The First connection (Primary connection) was obtained on 26.05.2011. South Value Sports Plan was activated for the first connection on 06.11.2014 for a monthly rental of Rs.255/-. The Second connection was obtained by the Complainant on 01.03.2014 by paying a sum of Rs. 1900/- on 28th February, 2014 under South Super Value Plan with one month HD for a monthly rental of Rs.225. The said amount of Rs. 1900/- was paid by the Complainant is exclusively towards activation charges of Second connection. The Complainant has done a Recharge for a sum of Rs.1750/- on 28.02.2014 towards monthly rental deduction for the first connection. As on the date of recharge of Rs.1750/-, the second connection was not in existence. On 29.03.2014, the Complainant has done recharge of Rs.2200/-. The balance from the recharge of Rs.1750/- done on 28.02.2014 was approximately Rs.1500/-and Rs.250/- was deducted from the Recharge of Rs.1750/- for the monthly rental. The balance amount was Rs.1500- The said balance of Rs 1500/- along with Recharge of Rs.2200/- was utilized towards the monthly rental deduction of the both first and second connection since 29 March, 2014 and the same has been got over on 05.11.2014. A sum of Rs.2585/- was fixed as one year rental for Primary/first connection irrespective of the monthly rental ought to be paid. The second connection is charged at the daily burn rate as mentioned above. The remaining balance amount of Rs.2585/- was deducted for second connection as per the daily burn rate as mentioned above. There was no request has been made by the Complainant for availing "South Max" Plan for the 2nd connection as alleged in the complaint. Therefore, the Complainant was charged at the normal rates. The complaint are denied except to the extent specifically admitted herein. It is denied that the Complainant has requested to activate South Max Plan for 2^nd connection. It is submitted that the Complainant has opted to choose only for South Super Value for 2nd connection and not as alleged. on 06.11.2014, the Complainant has done recharge for a sum of Rs.5170/- out of which a sum of Rs. 2585/- was deducted for the first connection for 12 months. The remaining balance amount of Rs.2585/- was deducted for the 2nd connection as per daily burn rate of Rs.9.46/-. It is denied that the amount of Rs.2200/-,Rs.1750/- & Rs.1900/- are not accounted. It is to be noted that the amount of Rs.2200+ (1750-250+1500)=Rs.3700/- was accounted from 29.03.2014 to 05.11.2014 for both the connections. The sum of Rs 1900/- was paid by the customer exclusively for obtaining and activation of the 2nd connection. Therefore, all the aforesaid sums are accounted properly and the Complainant without knowing aware of those facts filed the frivolous complaint. The officials of the opposite parties 1 & 3 have properly informed the same to the Complainant.  There was 11 months delay between recharge done on 06.11.2014. The Complainant sent a legal notice on 01.09.2015 to the opposite Parties. However, the Complainant has filed the instant complaint with intent to harass the opposite parties 1 & 3.Hence the complaint to be dismissed.

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked. The Opposite Parties 1 and 3 submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties 1 and 3, no documents was marked. The 2^nd Opposite Party in spite of sufficient notice served had not appeared, was called absent and set exparte.   

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?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had obtained two Airtel Digital TV Connections under Customer ID Nos.3008029012-001 and 3008029012-001 of the 1^st Opposite Party through 2^nd Opposite Party, namely South Value Sports Plan and South Max Plan.

It is in dispute that the 1^st Opposite Party had suspended the Digital TV Connection being South Value Sports Plan, availed first on 26.05.2011, before the due date, i.e, before 05.11.2015. 

The Contention of the Complainant is that a sum of Rs.5,170/- has been paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party, as demanded by the 1^st Opposite Officials, for the said two connections, as found in EX.A-6 being the Receipt dated 06.11.2014. The First Connection of South Value Sports Plan obtained fell due on 05.11.2015, whereas the 1^st Opposite had sent a SMS that his first connection of South Value Sports Plan would be suspended due to low balance and they had disconnected his first connection on 20.08.2015, before the due date. And thereafter when he approached the 1^stOpposite Party on 24.08.2015 and met one of the customer care officer, who informed that the amounts so far paid were not accounted and informed him to contact the 2^nd Opposite Party and on 25.08.2015 when met one of the official of the 2^nd Opposite Party dealing with DTH connection was not in position to inform the details correctly, which constrained the Complainant to send a Legal Notice dated 01.09.2015 to the Opposite Parties explaining all the facts and to restore the same and the same was received by the Opposite Parties as found in Ex.A-7, but no response.

The Opposite Parties 1 & 3 contended that the Complainant had opted for 2^nd Connection of South Super Value and not South Max as alleged and the said South Super Value was on daily burn rate, and the Payment made on 06.11.2014 for first Connection of South Value Sports Plan at Rs.2,585/- is valid for 12 months,  for a monthly rental of Rs.255/-. And it was admitted that a sum of Rs.3,700/- was accounted from 29.03.2014 to 05.11.2014 for both the connections.

On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the admission made by the 1^st and 3^rd opposite Parties that the previous amount of Rs.1,750/- as found in Ex.A-2 being the Receipt dated 28.02.2014 and Rs.2,200/- as found in Ex.A-5 being the Receipt dated 29.03.2014, was accounted from 29.03.2014 for both the connections, and in spite of deduction made for 2,585/- for 12 months out of total sum of Rs.5,170/- as per EX.A-6 and as admitted by the 1^st and 3^rd Opposite Parties in their version, suspension of First Connection of South Value Sports Plan made, is not legally sustainable and clear negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 and thereby had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite 1 to 3 had committed deficiency of service. 

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

        As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs. The Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 16^th of August 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	26.05.2011	Copy of Customer relationship form under ID No.3008029012-001
Ex.A2	28.02.2014	Copy of Airtel Silver line, Adyar receipt No.29483
Ex.A3	28.02.2014	Copy of Airtel Silver line, Adyar receipt No.29486
Ex.A4	22.03.2014	Copy of Customer relationship form under ID No.3008029012-002
Ex.A5	29.03.2014	Copy of Airtel silveer lie, adyar receipt No.30465
Ex.A6	06.11.2014	Copy of Airtel silver line, adyar receipt No.36354
Ex.A7	01.09.2015	Copy of Legal notice along with acknowledgement card

 

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

 

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                      MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT