Punjab

Moga

CC/15/45

Vinod Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Airtel showroom - Opp.Party(s)

In person

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

                                      Complaint No. 45 of 2015

                                                                Instituted On: 14.07.2015

                                                 Decided On: 01.10.2015

 

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Sh.Jagdish Singh R/o VPO: Bilaspur, Tehsil Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga.

Complainant 

Versus

 

1. The Manager, Airtel Showroom, Near Bus Stand, Besides DSP Office, G.T.Road, Moga.

2. Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070.

3. Bharti Airtel Ltd, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh-160101.

         

Opposite Parties

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

 

Coram:      Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

                   Smt Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt.Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:      Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma complainant in person.

                   Opposite party nos.1 to 3 exparte.  

 

ORDER

(S.S.Panesar, President)

                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’) against The Manager, Airtel Showroom, Near Bus Stand, Besides DSP Office, G.T.Road, Moga and others (herein-after referred to as opposite parties)- directing them to revise and amend the bill and send an amended bill to the complainant and to pay the compensation for mental tension, harassment, loss of business due to wastage of time to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that complainant was having a Airtel Mobile connection no.+9181462-08147 on which he got all the facilities such as calling, internet etc.. He was regular customer of the opposite parties for near about the last four years without any interruption. By 03.06.2015, the bill of complainant's mobile connection was Rs.2600/- when his mobile internet was stopped. He approached the Customer care on number 121, who told the complainant that his internet usage has exceeded the limits, so the internet facility was being stopped. On 06.06.2015, the complainant moved to Airtel Office i.e. opposite party no.1 at Moga, who told the complainant that the bill was to the tune of  Rs.8500/-. Thereafter, the complainant again approached to the customer care and they told the complainant to wait for the bill, because the details can only be found from the bill. On 21.06.2015, the complainant received his bill for an amount of Rs.10,407/-. The complainant was astonished to receive the bill because when the internet was stopped, how the bill got increased. The complainant requested the opposite parties many a time to adjust his unnecessary bill and to review it, but the opposite parties made lame excuses and did not resolve his grievances. The act and conduct of opposite parties has caused mental tension and harassment to the complainant and also caused financial loss to his business due to wastage of time. Hence, this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, Sh.Gagandeep Nohria, Proprietor has appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. But thereafter, neither any reply filed nor anybody appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. As such, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded exparte. Upon notice, none put appearance on behalf of opposite party nos.2 & 3, despite due service, as such, opposite party nos.2 & 3 were ordered to be proceeded exparte.

4.                In ex-parte evidence, the complainant Vinod Kumar Sharma appeared in witness box as his own witness and filed his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of his allegations made in the complaint. The complainant also produced on record copy of the document Ex.C2 and closed his exparte evidence.

5.                We have heard the complainant in person and have carefully gone through evidence on record.

6.                It is the case of the complainant that he is holder of an Airtel Mobile connection no.+918146208147, on which he enjoyed all the facilities such as calling, internet etc. Uptil 3.6.2015, the bill of the mobile connection of the complainant was Rs.2600/-. However, internet facility of his mobile connection was stopped by the opposite parties. The complainant approached customer care on number 121, who told the complainant that his internet usage has exceeded the limit, so internet facility was being stopped. On 06.06.2015, the complainant again approached Airtel office, who told the complainant that his bill to the tune of Rs.8500/- was due and payable. On 21.06.2015, the complainant received bill to the tune of Rs.10,407/-, copy whereof is Ex.C2 on record. The complainant was surprised to receive the bill in dispute for such a huge amount, while internet facility on his mobile connection was stopped w.e.f 3.6.2015. The complainant requested the opposite parties to rectify the bill in dispute, but opposite parties have failed to redress the grievances of the complainant. The act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and it is requested that opposite parties may be directed to rectify the bill in dispute.

7.                However, from the appreciation of the fact and circumstances of the case, it becomes amply clear that there is nothing to presume that on 3.6.2015, the amount due against the complainant's mobile connection was to the tune of Rs.2600/- or that  the same was due to the tune of Rs.8500/- on 06.06.2015. There is nothing on record to substantiate those allegations. The complainant was supposed to produce some documentary proof for the satisfaction of this Forum for reaching the conclusion that some excessive amount was being charged from the complainant. The bill Ex.C2 issued by opposite parties for an amount of Rs.10,407/- also does not support aforesaid contentions of the complainant. The complainant has failed to pin point which of the excessive amount was being charged by the opposite parties from him. Simply by saying that opposite parties have not come present to contest the instant complaint, will not resolve the complainant from discharging his liability to prove his case. There is absolutely no deficiency in service nor there is any unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties for allegedly charging the complainant excessively. The instant complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be dismissed.

8.                Consequently, the instant complaint is ordered to be dismissed in exparte accordingly. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost immediately and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

 

                   (Bhupinder Kaur)          (Vinod Bala)        (S.S. Panesar)

                    Member                         Member                   President

 

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:01.10.2015.