Complaint filed on: 17.08.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 03.07.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1654/2012

DATED THIS THE 03^rd JULY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

1. Brighter India Foundation

Office at 187, 12^th cross,

RMV 2^nd stage,

(Behind RMV club)

Bengaluru-94

2. Brighter India Foundation

Old office Premises was

situated at 500, 4^th cross,

3^rd block, RMV 2^nd stage, Bengaluru-94

By Inperson     

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Circle/City office no.11/1 & 12/1, west ‘a’ wing

Maruthi Infotech centre, Amarjyothi layout,

Domlur,

Bengaluru-71

Rep. by The Manager

By Adv.Sri.B.J.Mahesh

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party for not reporting the settlement about the alleged disconnected broadband connection and for not shifting another internet line on their shifting of office from second address to first address and thereby has been claiming the reliefs of:

1. Rs.23,333.33 for not using the phone in the month of March 2012 and
2. compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment for not shifting the phone to new address.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that they had 2 airtel connections namely (1) 14456612 (DSL) & (2) 15552791 (leased line) from January 2009 and February 2010 respectively. On 17.04.12, Opposite party was requested to cancel the DSL connection but the bill for the month of March 2012 for Rs.8,996/- dtd.12.04.12 was received and it was paid and returned the modem instrument. Again they issued bill for Rs.4,492.78 on 18.06.12 though they were not liable to pay any amount. Their enquiries were not responded by the Opposite party. Regarding the leased line they sent the termination request on 01.03.12 and sent the reminder dtd.17.04.12 for which also no response was received. Hence this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party/Bharathi Airtel ltd., has questioned the maintainability of this complaint u/s 7B of IT Act, further  contending that the Complainant being the commercial establishment, had taken the connection for its business/commercial activities but not for the livelihood and hence the Complainant cannot become the consumer. The second bill for Rs.4,492.78 was waived off on demand/intimation as goodwill gesture and the allegations of the same is not maintainable. After taking the intimation dtd.17.04.12 action was taken to both the lines. The shifting of the both the lines to the new address became unable, as shifting was not possible/feasible technically. The advance amount of Rs.70,000/- paid for 3 months and the refund of the 1/3 of the said amount for not using the same on the third month is not tenable, in the absence of any such request for termination on or before 01.03.12. The said request made on 17.04.12 is against the terms & conditions which says three months prior notice to be issued and 100% of the remainder initial period has to be paid. The request for disconnection for the second line also being belated one is not maintainable. There is no willful negligence or default or deficiency in their service. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          4. The Complainant’s authority letter holder and the officer legal of the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A4 documents. The Opposite party has not filed any documents, but referred the Complainant’s documents. Written arguments were filed by both parties. Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite party in not refunding the 1/3 deposit of the first connection and not shifting second connection within the alleged stipulated  period ?  
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The Complainant sent Ex-A2 “withdrawal form of cancellation request” to the Opposite party in connection with DSL line bearing account no.14456612 showing its segment as commercial. On the same day i.e. on 12.04.12, the authorized signatory of the Complainant had requested for the cancellation of the said fixed line by making payment of Rs.8,996/- as per Ex-A1 letter. The Secretary/CEO of the Complainant by virtue of authority letter/Ex-A4 dtd.25.08.12 has filed the affidavit evidence also relying on Ex-A3/the copies of email transactions.

          8. The Opposite party has contended that as goodwill gesture the 2^nd bill for Rs.4,492.78 was waived on receipt of the intimation/request of the Complainant. No contra materials were placed by the Complainant. The arguments of the Complainant that they have not received such formal letter regarding such waived amount is not sufficient to show that the Opposite party still insisted the said amount by issuing the reminder or the bill. Hence the said contention does not survive for consideration.

          9. The Complainant is the commercial establishment being administered by various authorities namely HR & Admn, Secretary/CEO etc., It is not the sole proprietorship business and not the business concern run for livelihood of any person/family. The Complainant has taken 2 airtel connections for its business activities and as such the proviso to Sec.2d(i) that the consumer does not include the person who obtains any goods or service for any commercial purpose applies to this case. Hence the Complainant at the outset itself has no locus standi to be declared himself as the consumer and to file this complaint.

          10. In order to prove the violation of the terms & conditions of the airtel connections, the Complainant had to produce the terms & conditions letter to show which of the conditions are violated. The email Ex-A3 shows that the Complainant has signed up airtel leased line 3 years back and it shows that they have possessed the supporting documents but not produced the same. By writing the termination letter as per Ex-A1 on 17.04.12 expecting the results retrospectively cannot be accepted. The contention of the Opposite party is that payment of 3 months advance amount and advance intimation of 3 months for connection and disconnection of the phone or for refund of the amount and obligation and the customer to pay the remainder amount of the quarterly period not rebutted by the Complainant clearly show that there was no negligency or deficiency on the part of the Opposite party. Thereby the Opposite party does not become liable to re-pay the alleged 1/3 of the advance amount for not using the service in March 2012, in the absence of any intimation given for quarterly period or earlier to 01.03.12 and hence the Complainant has failed to establish the Consumer Dispute no.1 and accordingly it is answered in the negative.

          11. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.1654/2012 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 03^rd July of 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s