Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/417/2017

Lt Col Inderjit Singh (Retired) - Complainant(s)

Versus

The MD/CEO Airtel DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	417 of 2017
Date  of  Institution	:	22.05.2017
Date   of   Decision	:	07.09.2017

 

 

 

 

Lt.Col Inderjit Singh (Retd.) s/o Late Sh.Harnam Singh, 572, Sector 16-D, Chandigarh.     

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The MD/CEO, Airtel DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd. (Bharti), Airtel Centre, Plot No.16, Udyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.

2]  Airtel Digital TV, through its Branch Head, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Chandigarh Technology Park, Chandigarh.

                          ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH              MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 Sh.Rajat Pabbi, Adv. for OPs.

  

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

          Briefly stated, the complainant, aged 85 years old, being subscriber of Direct to Home TV service provided by OPs, had paid Rs.5170/- and Rs.2736/- to the agent of the Opposite Parties on 13.6.2015 (Ann.C-1) as one year subscription charges for Two Television sets and the same was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties by sending SMS on 17.6.2015 and 1.7.2015.  However, inspite of recharging/paying for One year w.e.f. June/July, 2016 for two TVs, the complainant still received SMS from Opposite Parties on 4.1.2016 stating that the validity of your Digital TV will expire in 5 days.  The complainant brought this matter with the notice of agent of OPs, who confirmed the validity of services till June/July, 2016, but despite all that the OPs breached the contract on 9.1.2016 by stopping the DTH services to TV2 of the complainant.  Thereafter, the complainant took the matter with the Opposite Parties by sending e-mails whereupon the issue was resolved by the Opposite Parties by sending e-mail dated 20.2.2016 and the services were restored till the date of recharge i.e. 1^st July, 2016. 

         It is averred that to avoid the possibility of a repeat sudden cut-off, the complainant remitted Rs.1000/- through the agent of Opposite Parties to ensure availably of adequate credit balance beyond 1^st July, 2016 and the same was acknowledged by the OPs by sending SMS. However, despite having the credit balance of Rs.1000/- beyond 1^st July, 2016, the OPs still stopped the DTH services on both the TVs of complainant on 2/3 July, 2016.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the agent of Opposite Parties, who informed that I could pay for 10 months and would get a bonus viewing of 2 months to complete one year.  Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.6900/- and Rs.2748/- respectively for both TVs as DTH subscription on 4.7.2016, but even this time the OPs failed to provide bonus viewing of 2 months.  It is also averred that the Opposite Parties also put up the Frozen Display from 20.1.2016 to end of March, 2017 skipping 3 financial transaction that took place during this period.  It is also stated that the OPs manipulated dates for recharge, resulting in a mathematical absurdity on 3.4.2017 showing recharged dated of 11.5.2017 for both TVs. It is further averred that the Opposite Parties in a period of over 18 months provided a highly defective customer service and further the OPs never provided proper receipts/statement of accounts.  It is submitted that due to above deficient act of the Opposite Parties the complainant and his wife had to suffer immense physical and mental harassment. Hence, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that no terms & conditions have been breached and the complainant has been charged as per the usage done by him.  It is stated that the complainant is bound to pay for the usage and there is no question of any deficiency in service as the company is benefited only through the services provided to the customers.  It is also stated that the OPs have acted as per the record and since the record is totally computerized, and the services is also controlled as per the account maintained by the complainant. It is submitted that the connectivity is totally in order and there may be a network problem at the complainant’s place.  It is also submitted that the complainant has been charged as per the usage and he is liable to pay all the charges as per the usage. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The complainant also filed replication reiterating the contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the entire record.

 

6]       After examination of facts as enumerated by the complainant in his complaint, it has been proved on the face of the record that the OPs have miserably failed to provide a proper consumer friendly services to the complainant.  Despite payment of usage charges in time, the complainant was deprived of uninterrupted and regular DTH services.  The Opposite Parties in their written reply have failed to point out any lapse on the part of the complainant in regular payment of their charges, rather they have taken vague defence in rebuttal to the facts as alleged in the complaint. The reasons put forth by the OPs in adjusting Rs.1000/- towards additional channels on the DTH connection of the complainant is also not supported by any document or evidence on record.

 

7]       The complainant is 85 years old and retired from Army as Lieutenant Colonel.  He has served the nation while serving in defence force, but seems to have miserably failed to defend himself from the unscrupulous and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.  The complainant despite payment of full amount, as demanded by the Opposite Parties, could not enjoy the services, which is unethical and a black dot on the part of present market scenario, which requires to be curbed with strong mandate. 

 

8]       Keeping into consideration the peculiar facts & circumstances, the complaint is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.1000/- deposited by the complainant on 23.2.2016 and also to provide the complainant, in lieu of mental & physical harassment, the DTH services on his Customer ID No.3003728990 with Two Televisions connections, without any fault and interruption, free of cost, till 31^st December, 2020.

         If the above order is not complied with by the OPs, in its letter & spirit, the OPs shall be liable for their contemptuous act for penalty as envisaged under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

7^th September, 2017     

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER