STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH





Appeal No.123 of 2009





Bharti Airtel Limited (formally known as Bhgarti Tele Ventures Limited ) having Registered Office at H-5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, new Delhi and Circle Office at C-25, Industrial Area, Phase II, SAS Nagar, Mohali through its Manager-Legal and Regulatory.



..…Appellant.
Versus

Ms. Aanchal Thakur D/o Sh. Gurdial Singh, resident of House No.110, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.

..…Respondent



BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.



PRESENT: Sh. Sumeet Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate (respondent) in person.



MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1. This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 2.2.2009 passed in complaint case No.934 of 2008 : Ms. Aanchal Thakur Vs. M/s Bharti Airtel Limited.

2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is a practicing lawyer and is the subscriber of Airtel connection No.98785-77110 since 2007. As per the complainant, she had been having network problems at her residence and working place i.e. Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. She apprised the OP of the same. However, it did not bother to provide her good network coverage and consequently, she is facing great deal of hardship as most of the calls get dropped in between and mostly, neither she or the person on the other side is unable to hear the voice. Since nothing had been done on her complaint, she issued a notice to the OP dated 17.4.2008. However, no action was taken by the OP even then and hence, she had filed this complaint.

3. The version of OP is that they are one of the best service providers in the world and for the services provided in the area of the complainant, there was no complaints from any other subscriber. It has also been asserted that network in the Hon’ble High Court was good and all efforts were being made to provide best services.

4. The learned District Forum in the impugned order has observed that the contention of OP in Para No.8 and 9 of the reply and the affidavit is very strange as according to them, they are not providing network to an individual but are providing services to the customer at large in the area where the complainant is residing. The learned District Forum has further observed that even though the connection is given to an individual in the view of learned District Forum, the OP fell that they have no responsibility to see that the said individual does not face any network problem in the area in which the connection is granted. In the view of the learned District Forum, it was the duty of the OP and all other service providers to ensure that the connection is granted only after satisfying themselves that the place where the connection is given does not face any network problem. To the learned District Forum, it appeared that the interest of OP is only to multiply its subscriber base. It has been recorded in the impugned order that the OP got checked the network coverage at the residence of the complainant and Sh. Maninder Singh, Chief Technical Officer submitted his report and in this report, he nowhere mentioned that if there was no network problem inside the house. All that is mentioned in the report is that cellular network is available amongst others in the residential area of Section 21, Chandigarh. The learned District Forum has recorded that if the complainant cannot receive the calls or make the calls inside from her house to the other mobile telephone holders, then what use does the consumer has for holding mobile phone. The learned District Forum, therefore, found report given by Sh. Maninder Singh of a little help. The learned District Forum held the view that the OP is feeling sort of its duty in properly checking the network coverage at the premises where the connection is granted and thus, the subscriber is not only being robbed of the money but is also harassed and humiliated. Holding this to be an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP, the learned District Forum ordered the OP to overhaul the entire account of the complainant and to refund her the entire rent received by them since the installation of the connection. The OP was, however, made entitled to call charges and CLIP charges along with service tax till installation of booster in the house and confirm that the subscriber can call any telephone or receive the call clearly from any telephone from inside her house. OP was also directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation. The OP was to overhaul the account and pay the amount as directed to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order failing which the OP was held liable to pay the same along with interest @12% per annum since the filing of the complaint i.e. 14.8.2008 till realization.

5. Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, the OP has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the respondent and the record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Sh. Sumeet Goyal, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant/OP whereas Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate (respondent]/complainant appeared in person.

6. Sh. Sumeet Goyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated that the OP is the best service provider in the field. He made three submissions with regard to the appeal. His first submission was that as per the directions of the Government, the service provider is to cover 90% of the area and the service provider cannot be expected to cover 100% area fully effectively. For the second submission, he referred to Page No.9 the appeal file and submitted that the service quality, functionality, availability and/or reliability is affected under various circumstances such as transmission limitation caused by topographical (wrongly mentioned as typographical), geographical, atmospheric, hydrological and/or mechanical conditions and the same can only be caused during technical failure, modification, upgradation or variation, re-location, repair and/or maintenance of the systems/equipments. He further referred to Page No.11 of the appeal file and pointed out to the bench the part of the technical report submitted by Sh. Maninder Singh, CTO stated that circular network of Bharti Airtel Limited is available amongst others in the residential area of Section 21, Chandigarh and premises and building of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. He, therefore, submitted that network of the OP is fully functional in Sector 21, where the complainant resides and also in the premises of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana where the complainant works. He emphatically submitted that it is impossible for the OP to place boosters for the convenience of individual subscribers and such an order passed by the learned District Forum is in fact not implementable. He emphatically submitted that there was no problem with regard to the network of the OP and therefore, the complaint is misplaced and there being no deficiency on the part of OP, the impugned order be set aside.

7. In response, Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate, respondent appeared in person and submitted that her specific complaint was with regard to receiving all the signals in her residence and the CTO of the company never visited the house and therefore, the technical report submitted by him has no meaning as it nowhere states that the signals are being received properly in her residence. She further submitted that the order passed by the learned District Forum was well reasoned order and it must be sustained.

8. We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the OP is that as per the directions on the subject, the OP is only required to cover 90% of the area and 100% proper coverage cannot be provided and since the OP is in deed covering Sector 21 where the complainant resides, no deficiency has been committed by the OP. In this context, even though the release of license does not require the service provider to cover 100% area of telecom circle, it is pertinent to mention that this condition is only relevant to the release of a license to a service provider. It, however, does not give the liberty to the OP that within 90% coverage of the area, the quality of signal can be poor in areas up to 10%. Thus, we find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the OP that the OP is covering 90% of the area and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. We are definitely in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that it is the duty of the service provider to ensure that the signal reach premises of the subscriber in a proper manner.

10. With regard to the second submission of the learned counsel for the OP that service quality is affected due to transmission limitations caused by topographical (wrongly spelled as ‘typographical’), geographical, atmospheric or mechanical conditions but in this case, the OP has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that the cause of the problem in the case of the complainant was any one of the above or that it was due to technical failure, modification, up-gradation, reallocation, repair or maintenance of the system etc.

11. Coming to the third submission of the OP that the CTO of the company had certified that the network of Bharti Airtel Limited is available in the residential areas of Sector 21 as well as the building of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it is relevant to pointed out that the issue is not with regard to the coverage by network of a general area. The question raised by the complainant is regarding the quality of transmission/signals specifically at her residence and also in the premises of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The CTO’s report is entirely silent with regard to these allegations. The CTO should have verified the quality of signals at the premises of the complainant as well as those areas of the premises of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and in such investigation, should have also incorporated the subscriber/complainant. It is apparent that no such effort had been made by the CTO. Thus, we are again in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that this report of the CTO is meaningless as it only refers to the geographical area of coverage of the network and does not clearly comment upon the quality of communication in the area, which have been pointed out by the complainant. Thus, we have no hesitation in agreeing with the view of the learned District Forum that the OP is only interested in expanding its subscriber base and is only interested in grabbing money from them without properly ensuring that the quality of communication being provided is as promised and it does not suffer from any problems and towards this end, we are again in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the OP must ensure proper communication quality by appropriately installing boosters wherever required to bring the communication quality to the level of assurance provided to the customer. In this view of the matter, we find no infirmity with the impugned order and therefore, in our view, it does not need any interference.

12. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed as it lacks substance and the impugned order is upheld being just fair and legal.

13. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

10th July 2009.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM LAL]

PRESIDENT



Sd/-

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)]

MEMBER

Ad/-

R.B.T. No.964 of 2008

In Appeal No.101 of 2002





PRESENT: Sh. Sumeet Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Ms. Aanchal Thakur, Advocate (respondent) in person.

…..

Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.





[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

10th July 2009.


(MAJ GEN S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.))

MEMBER