Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/118/2018

Rajan Mehta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Nodal Officer, Punjab of Bharti Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Jul 2018

ORDER

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

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	118 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	26.2.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	30.07.2018

 

 

 

 

Rajan Mehta, Resident of 1174, Sector 15-B, Chandigarh (UT) 160015  

             …..Complainant

Versus

The Nodal Officer, Punjab of Bharti Airtel Limited, with Office at Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh 160101

                          ….. Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN            PRESIDENT

         SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA        MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH         MEMBER 

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

 Sh.Sanjiv Pabbi, Adv. for Opposite Party

 

 

PER RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant was having 5 telephone connections from the Opposite Party and the same were ported out, the details of which are as under:-

 

Telephone Number	Activation Date	Port-Out Date
9872401174	03-02-2004	20.10.2016
9872887722	04.11.2004	20.10.2016
8146590207	11.06.2011	21.10.2016
9501170207	01.06.2015	20.10.2016
7087910207	30.07.2015	21.10.2016

 

 

         It is averred that the complainant was facing network problem at his residence, therefore, he reported the matter to the Opposite Party.  The team of the Opposite Party visited the area, but did not resolve the matter and the problem remains as it is.  Thereafter, the complainant made request to the Opposite Party for porting out the said telephone connections with another service provider as he was not getting proper network of Opposite Party at his residence, but the said request of the complainant was rejected by the Opposite Party on the ground that as per the rule of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, I cannot do so since my accounts were less than 3 month old, whereas the connections of the complainant were very old.  It is submitted that even after porting out of the telephone connections, the Opposite Party forced him to pay a balance settlement amount on the threats of disruption of my service with new provider.  Hence, alleging the said act & conduct of the Opposite Party as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, this complaint has been filed.

 

2]       The Opposite Party has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the company is providing best services in the region and there are no complaints of signal in the vicinity of the complainant. It is submitted that the services of Opposite Party were ported out on 20.10.2016 and 21.10.2016 Ann.E-1. It is also submitted that the complainant has not impleaded the new service provider as party to the present complaint.  It is stated that the conditions are required to be fulfilled for clearing outstanding payments due towards the donor operator issued as per the normal billing cycle. It is also stated that before porting out, the outstanding due has to be cleared as per TRAI rules. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

 

3]       Complainant also filed replication thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

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

 

6]       The complainant in Para No.2 of the complaint has stated that the five telephone numbers of Airtel/Opposite Party working in activation since long was satisfactory and without any disruption until their respective port-out dates. The details of the said telephone numbers of the complainant is given below:-

 

Telephone Number	Activation Date	Port-Out Date
9872401174	03-02-2004	20.10.2016
9872887722	04.11.2004	20.10.2016
8146590207	11.06.2011	21.10.2016
9501170207	01.06.2015	20.10.2016
7087910207	30.07.2015	21.10.2016

 

7]       The Bharti Airtel Company no doubt boast of high speed of internet and best connectivity & network connection, though in practical, it did not work well and the public is suffering too much. People gets poor service despite payment of hefty charges to the company.  Neither the internet speed is adequate enough nor does telephone network work well especially in Punjab-Chandigarh region. 

 

8]       However, despite complaint in general, the complainant in the present case, has not come up with any specific technical report/evidence to prove deficiency, as alleged in the complaint.  The complainant has got his telephone connection ported out to some other tele-communication company and the grouse, if any, which hurts the complainant due to low performance of Airtel Company network also stands closed. 

 

9]       The facts & circumstances of the case, does not, in totality warrant any penal action against the OPs. The complaint, as such, is dismissed with no order as to costs. 

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

Announced

30^th July, 2018                                          

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                   (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER