Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/80/2015

Narinder Nain - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/80/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	09/02/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	05/02/2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

Narinder Nain son of Sh. Chajju Singh, resident of Flat No.405, GH-5, Sector 5, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula.

 

….Complainant

Vs.

 

[1]  The Regional Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

 

[2]  Sandeep Kumar Bajpayee, Escalation Head, Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No.21, Rajiv Gandhi I.T. Park, Chandigarh.

 

[3]  Bharti Airtel Showroom, SCO 846, N.A.C. Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   MRS. SURJEET KAUR           PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

]

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present lis are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant got installed an Airtel 4G internet connection No. 8968541759, at his residence, in September 2014. It has been alleged that after activation, the Complainant has not been receiving the appropriate speed/service, which was committed by the Opposite Parties at the time of installation of the aforesaid connection. To this effect a Complaint was lodged, upon which a representative of the Opposite Parties came and told that since no 4G signal was found he had taken up the issue with the Company and it would take approx. 03 months to resolve the problem. However, on 01.12.2015, without even providing the 4G Services, the Opposite Parties raised a bill for the same and also without any intimation barred the outgoing calls of the post-paid connection No. 9988610083 of the Complainant. When the problem of the Complainant was not resolved, he made umpteen number of complaints to the Opposite Parties but no appropriate assistance/help was given by them. It has been further alleged that without using the 4G Services the Complainant had been paying rental of Rs.999/- + taxes. When the Opposite Parties failed to provide a permanent resolution of the grievance of the Complainant, left with no alternative, he has preferred the instant Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, claiming various reliefs.

     

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have pleaded that despite having used the 4G services under Connection No.8968541759, the Complainant had failed to pay for the same. Since the Complainant had not paid the dues under the said connection, the Opposite Parties had clearly intimated him that he needs to pay the dues for resumption of services of his other number. The Complainant was intimated through SMS to pay his dues against other number. It has been asserted that the Opposite Parties were empowered to disconnect service on the mobile no. 9988610083 of the Complainant under Rule 443 of the Indian Telegraph Rules. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties has been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

 

7.     It is apparent from the conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties that there were indeed issues with regard to the pace of functioning of the 4G connection obtained by the Complainant and that he did make a number of Complaints in that connection. In support of the averment in rebuttal, the Opposite Parties have not produced any documentation/data sheet of Bits of data used of the account of the Complainant for the period September 2014 to January 2015. Since the matter was technical, the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties was asked to consult a technical person and to argue the case supported with literature on the subject, but he has failed to do so.

 

8.     By the very nature of things, an individual who obtains a 4G connection would legitimately expect the functioning thereof at a reasonable pace. If such a facility functions at a faulty pace or gets disconnected frequently it does amount to deficiency in the rendering of services by the service provider. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party in the rendering of services.

 

9.     For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint succeeds against the Opposite Party. The same is allowed. We direct the Opposite Party to:- 

 

[a]  To ensure a permanent resolution of the grievance of the Complainant and not to charge the 4G charges until the grievance of the Complainant is resolved and to restore the services of the secondary mobile no. of the Complainant i.e. 9988610083;

 

[b]  To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.12,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

10.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.12,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, besides complying with the directions as in sub-para [a] above. 

 

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

Announced

05^th February, 2016                                                        

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                      Sd/-                               

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

                                                                                                                                                                                                          MEMBER