DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 369 of 5.9.2019

                                      Decided on:    14.1.2021

Sanjeev Kumar Pathak, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Patiala Road Branch, Rajpura, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

The Marketing Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd., C25, Industrial Area, Phase-2,SAS Nagar (Mohali)-Punjab-160056.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                                      Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                                      Sh.Y.S.Matta, Member 

ARGUED BY

                                      Sanjeev Kumar Pathak, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.K.S.Sidhu, counsel for OP.         

 ORDER

                                      JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Sanjeev Kumar Pathak (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Marketing Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd.(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s).
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is subscriber of SIM No.9779585158 of the OP and is always paying monthly dues before the due date.
3. It is averred that in the month of August,2018, the Airtel company through its sales agent provided a secondary SIM No.7087085186, as an add on number on the basis of his primary SIM number. It is further averred that the monthly usage bill of the secondary SIM is not separated but is on primary number, the credit limit of which is Rs.7200/-.It is further averred that the complainant received bill dated 6.7.2019 to be paid by 24.7.2019, in which the usage of SIM No. 9779585158  is shown as Rs.781.16 and of SIM No.  7087085186 as Rs.17296.05 due to activation of international roaming on this number. It is averred that no request for international roaming pack activation was ever made by him nor there is any information received  by him on primary Sim, in this regard.
4. It is averred that services of primary number were suddenly stopped by the OP  prior to the due date i.e.24.7.2019 .He called OP at its toll free number 121 who started the mobile SIM services. But again on 16.7.2019 SIM services were again stopped, when he was busy in getting treatment of his mother from 13.7.2019 to 18.7.2019.He again called OP to resume the services but this time his request was declined by the OP inspite of sending e-mails on 17.7.2019, 18.7.2019 and 20.7.2019 .Legal notice dated 22.7.2019 was also got sent to the OP. 
5. It is averred that on 20.8.2019 the complainant received an e-mail from the OP for waiver off Rs.6000/- from the total outstanding amount of Rs.18243/- which he did not accede as the amount of Rs.17296.05 has illegally added in the bill. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which caused mental harassment, agony and torture to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by directing the OP to resume the services of SIM; to waive off the dues unnecessary levied upon the complainant and also to pay compensation.
6. Notice of the complaint was duly served upon the OP who appeared through its counsel but no reply was filed despite availing of ample opportunities and ultimately defence of OP was struck off vide order dated 27.11.2019.
7. In evidence the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C6.
8. The main dispute is regarding the bill,Ex.C1, in which  amount of Rs.17958/- has been shown. As per the complainant the add on connection was given to him by the company and he never applied for add on connection. It is further argued by the complainant that he never used the telephone abroad so there is no question of sending the bill of Rs.17958/-to him. No detail  has been annexed with the bill of Rs.17958/- that how much usage was made by the complainant in the period which falls under this bill. The OP appeared but they never filed written reply resultantly their defence was struck off. So OP is negligent and fail to justify the Commission that  how they have calculated this bill.
9. So due to our above discussion the complaint stands allowed and the OP is restrained from  recovering  the amount of Rs.17958/- from the complainant as there  is no evidence on the file to show that how this bill was calculated. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.2000/-as compensation for causing harassment to the complaint.          

Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:14.1.2021       

                   Y.S.Matta      Vinod Kumar Gulati                   Jasjit Singh Bhinder

                   Member                 Member                                   President