Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/63/2019

Bijaya Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zonal Branch Manager, Bharati Airtel Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

18 Oct 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 63/2019

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Bijaya Kumar Sahu,

Reader in Economics(Retired),

At-LIC Colony, PO-Rairakhol,

Dist-Samblapur-768106, Odisha.                                  ………..…..Complainant

 

Vrs.

Zonal Manager, Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd,

Representative of Bharati Airtel,

Sambalpur(Sadar)-768001                                           .………..Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Self
2. For the O.P.                                  :- Sri. T.K.Harichandan, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:04.11.2019,Date of Hearing :12.09.2022, Date of Judgement : 18.10.2022

           Presented by Sri. Sadanada Tripathy, MEMBER,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a consumer of Bharati Airtel communication service having mobile number – 8114607654. As per message sent by Airtel, the Complainant recharged Rs. 65.00 to avail double talk of Rs. 130.00 @ 60 paisa/min for 28 days (Transaction ID- 292706523). The recharge of Rs. 65.00 on dtd. 27.09.2019 at 9.09 AM was successful & was confirmed by Airtel through a message. Thereafter the Complainant used his mobile for five calls on that same day successfully. His earlier balance was Rs. 12.81 & the current scheme balance was having talk time worth Rs. 125.20 as on dtd. 27.09.2019. But his SIM card was found rejected by Airtel on dtd. 28.09.2019 (Noon) as confirmed by the customer care center of Airtel. Since then his mobile has been disconnected from Airtel communication service & he is facing a lot of problems without any valid reason. Since dtd. 28.09.2019, the Complainant approached the Airtel Team Manager & Zonal Branch Manager several times but the problem was not sorted out by them. They replied that “Your SIM has been rejected & we can’t do anything”.    From the above actions of OP, they have committed Unfair Trade Practice and taking away money in a deceitful manner without providing service to the customer.
2. The Written Version of the O.P is that Govt. of India issued guideline for the National security reason, every customer should provide their KYC time to time and the Complainant has failed to submit the documents in office of the OP. For which SIM has been rejected. The contents of the prayer clause are wrong and denied by the OP. No cause of action had ever arose against the OP and in favour of the Complainant. Hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3.              From the above it is found that  every customer should provide their KYC time to time and the Complainant has failed to submit the KYC/documents in the office of the OP. For which SIM has been rejected as per the Government of India guideline. So there is no deficiency in part of the OP.                                                                                                                                 

So it is ordered that the case is dismissed on contest.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 18^th day of Oct, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.