Dear Mr. Mishra,

It seems as you haven't sent any complaint to the Nodal Officer of the Co. Kindly send a written comlaint to him at following address:
nodalofficer.raj@airtel.in

You will have to wait for the response for 10 working days only.

Mr. Sankappa A.,

Advocate,

Krishna Kripa Complex,

Near Service Bus Stand,

Udupi Taluk and District.




……….. Complainant

Versus



Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

(Formally Bharati Tele-Ventures Ltd.)

Circle Office,

K.K. Maruti Info-Tech Centre,

11/1 and 12/1, Block ‘A’ West Wing,

Koramangala, Inner Ring Road,

Amar Jyothi Layout,

Bangalore – 560071,

Rep. by its Udupi Branch:

Touchtel House, Ground Floor,

Business Complex, Near Udupi Residency, Udupi.




………….. Opposite Party






1. The Complainant has filed this Complaint alleging deficiency in service against Opposite Party and prayed for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the amount of loss and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony plus cost of litigation expenses, etc.



2. The case of the complainant is that he is the subscriber of landline No.08204295764 of Opposite Party. Opposite Party after delivering the bill, the bill amount was discharged by the Complainant by way of issuing of crossed cheque. The bill relating to the period of 17.05.2008 to 16.06.2008 bearing

Contd………2

No.960356708 was served through agency to the Complainant. The said bill showing the monthly amount of Rs.1,754.78. As usual the Complainant had issued a cheque bearing No.0371508 of Sooda Vijaya Bank, for a sum of Rs.1,755/- dated 26.06.2008. The said cheque was issued against the bill dt.17.05.2008 to 16.06.2008. After lapse of two days of issue of crossed cheque to the agency deputed by the Opposite Party, the Complainant’s outgoing calls from Telephone No.4295764, was barred by the Opposite Party without any intimation.



3. The Complainant after lapse of 2 days had made an enquiry in the Branch office attached to the Opposite Party Company at Udupi and after enquiry the officials of Udupi Branch had removed the bar on line and provided the services of outgoing calls only for a period of 2 days. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the incoming and outgoing calls were restricted by the Opposite Party, without any communication to the Complainant, even though the bill amount paid through the cheque. After lapse of 15 days, the enquiry was made by the Complainant about the bar on incoming and outgoing calls. The agent deputed by the Opposite Party had returned the cheque issued by the Opposite Party on 10.07.2008, saying that the cheque issued by the Complainant is of out stationed cheque. Even though the Complainant had made request to the agent to remove the bar on incoming and outgoing calls but the Opposite Party is not given any response. The Opposite Party fully knows well that No.4295764 is the personal phone of the Complainant and the Complainant very oftenly operating the said phone No. to communicate with the clients. The Opposite Party returned the cheque to the Complainant, on the ground that the company will accept only local cheques. But till 17.05.2008, the Complainant had issued out stationed cheque in respect of the monthly bill issued by the Opposite Party, the relating to the Telephone No.4295764 and the said cheque are all accepted and encashed. The Opposite Party had not given any communication to the Complainant to the extent that the out stationed cheque “are not accepting”. Without intimation to the Complainant about the non acceptance of the out stationed cheque is itself a deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party to its customer/complainant.



4. The statement of the Opposite Party on the basis of the internal arrangements made in the office of the Opposite Party. But, this internal arrangement is not binding on the customer/complainant and the same is binding

Contd…….3

only in the case of personal service to the individual. So, the Opposite Party is in deficiency in discharging their bounded duties.



5. On account of the restriction on incoming and outgoing calls, the Complainant finds difficulty to communicate with the parties about the day to day adjournment of the cases and moreover the customers of the Complainant, they lost the faith on the Complainant. On account of that, the income of the Complainant is reduced.



6. The Complainant is an advocate by profession and numbers of cases are dealt by him and also handling number of cases and hence the Complainant was/is having number of customers/clients. Because of the restriction in outgoing and incoming calls, it adversely effected the profession and also the income. Hence, the loss of income is estimated at Rs.3,00,000/- and the Complainant is also suffering from mental agony and mental tension and also golden time of the Complainant is lost in drafting of complaint and communicating with the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint.



7. After service of notice of complaint, Opposite Party appeared through its counsel and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.



8. The Opposite Party further contended that the Complainant has not come up with clean hands before this Forum. As it is settled principal of law that “a person who seeks equity must come with equity”. However in the instant case Complainant has suppressed several material facts and only to over come his intentional mistake, complainant has come up with the present false complaint.



9. The Opposite Party submits that Complainant herein was very much irregular in payment of the bill amount pertaining to his telephone number 0820-4295764. On most of the3 occasions Complainant had paid the bill amount much after the due date. Complainant used to make payment through cheque. It is the policy adopted by the Opposite Party that, in case of payment of bill amount being made through cheque, the same is required to be done through the cheque being drawn in the same city/town. Even in the bills being issued to the subscribers it is specifically instructed that the outstation cheque are not accepted by the Opposite Party.

Contd…….4

10. Opposite Party further submitted that he has issued the bill dated 18.05.2008 covering the period 17.04.2008 to 16.05.2008 for a sum of Rs.3,512/-. Since Complainant was already in arrears the payment date was mentioned as ‘IMMEDIATE’. As against the said bill, Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,757/-. Hence the subsequent bill i.e. bill dated 18.06.2008 covering the period 17.05.2008 to 16.06.2008 was issued for a sum of Rs.3,150/- including the arrears as well as the present month’s charges of Rs.1,754.78. Even the said bill was liable to be cleared by the Complainant immediately.



11. Opposite Party further submitted that as against the bill dt. 18.06.2008 for Rs.3,510/-, Complainant has issued an outstation cheque for Rs.1,755/- dt.26.06.2008. The Complainant has not properly mentioned the name of the bearer. Instead of mentioning as M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. or the Account ID of the Opposite Party, the Complainant has mentioned the name of bearer as “Airtel”. Upon presentation of the said cheque, the same came to be dishonoured by the banker of the Opposite Party vide reasons “not drawn us”. This fact was clearly intimated to the Complainant and he was requested to make the payment immediately by way of cash. Since the Complainant has failed to make the payment, the Opposite Party had to bar the outgoing calls of the telephone belongs to the Complainant. In spite of several requests made by the Opposite Party to the Complainant, to make the payment of the arrears, Complainant remained deaf ears.



12. Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant had requested with an assurance that he would make the payment immediately, considering the fact that Complainant being an advocate and also with a good gesture, he was given one more opportunity and services of outgoing calls were restored. However inspite of giving him an opportunity, Complainant did not clear the entire dues by making alternate payment, as such upon due intimation, both his incoming and outgoing calls were barred.



13. Opposite Party has specifically instructed its subscribers about non-acceptance outstation cheques. However on few occasions, as a good gesture, only to avoid any inconvenience being caused to the subscribers, the outstation cheques are accepted on the condition that subscribers shall not repeat the same further. However, this does not mean that Opposite Party has waived its right to reject the outstation cheques as specifically instructed by the Opposite Party.

Contd……….5

14. The Opposite Party has issued the bill dt. 18.07.2008 for Rs.4,998/-. The Complainant did not pay the said bill. Further the Opposite Party has issued the bill dt.18.08.2008 for Rs.6,136/- even the same was not cleared by the Complainant in full. As against the said bill on 19.08.2008 Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3,510/- by way of cash. Since the entire bill amount was not paid by way of cash, Opposite Party has issued the bill dt.18.09.2008 for Rs.2,823/-. Complainant did not pay the said bill and Opposite Party has issued bill dt. 18.10.2008 for Rs.2,857/- which is also remained unpaid. By this time the telephone of the Complainant was permanently disconnected and the security deposit amount of Rs.1,000/- which was paid by the Complainant while availing the connection, was appropriated towards the bill dt.18.10.2008 and subsequently bill dt.18.11.2008 and 18.12.2008 for Rs.1,857/- was issued to the Complainant. Hence as of now Complainant is still in arrears of Rs.1,932/- to the Opposite Party.



15. Without prejudice to the above contentions, the Opposite Party do herewith traversing the averments made in the complaint as follows:

With respect to Para -2 of the complaint, it is submitted that, it is true that Opposite Party has issued the cheque for Rs.1,755/- dt.26.06.2008. It is also true that his outgoing calls are barred. However it is not true that the same was done without intimation. In fact it is only upon due intimation to the Complainant outgoing calls are barred.



16. With respect to Para – 3 of the complaint it is submitted that since the Complainant had requested with an assurance that he would make the payment immediately, he was given one more opportunity and services of outgoing calls were restored. However, in spite of giving him an opportunity, Complainant did not clear the entire dues by making alternate payment, as such upon due intimation, both his incoming and outgoing calls were barred. It is true that the cheque was returned to the Complainant saying that it is outstation cheque.


It is submitted that while returning the cheque, Complainant was also informed about the disnonour of the cheque for the reasons mentioned in the bank endorsement. Since the Complainant has not cleared the dues, question of Opposite Party giving any response to the Complainant for his request to remove the bar on incoming and outgoing calls would not arise for consideration. With respect to averment that till 17.05.2008 Complainant had issued outstation cheque which are accepted and encashed. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has accepted the outstation cheque only to avoid any inconvenience to the customer only with a

Contd……6

condition and specific instructions of not to submit the outstation cheque in future. However same does not amounts to waiving of the right by the Opposite Party of rejecting the outstation cheques. Further the averment that the non acceptance of outstation cheque is without intimation is denied as false. Hence, there is no deficiency in the service of the Opposite Party towards the Complainant.



17. All the averments made in Para 4 of the complaint that the internal arrangement made by the Opposite Party is not binding on the Complainant so the Opposite Party is in deficiency in discharging their bounded duties are denied as false. In fact it is not the internal arraignment and it is the contract between the Opposite Party and the subscribers the terms of which are specifically mentioned in the bills.



18. The averments made in para -5 of the complaint regarding alleged reduction of the income of the Complainant or loosing faith by his customers are not due to any short fall on the part of the Opposite Party.



19. Since there is no willful negligence or default on the part of the Opposite Party, Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation irrespective of the loss of income, alleged mental agony and mental tension, loss of golden time of the Complainant as contended in Para – 6 of the complaint. Without prejudice to the fact that Opposite Party is not responsible for any alleged inconvenience caused to the Complainant due to disconnection, it is submitted that, apart from present connection under reference, Complainant has got a mobile telephone and other hand line through which Complainant was able to keep in contract with his customers.



20. There is no cause of action to file the complaint. The present complaint is misconceived, devoid of merits and Complainant has suppressed the materials facts and prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.



21. The Complainant has produced 6 documents which are marked as EX.C-1 to Ex.C-6. Opposite Party has produced 6 documents which are marked as Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6. Both the parties filed affidavits. Complainant filed interrogatories and Opposite Parties replied the same by way of affidavit. We heard both the parties.



22. Now the points that arises for our consideration as under:

1. Whether the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

Contd……7

2. Whether the Complainant is entitle for the releifs claimed?

3. What Order?

Point No.1:

23. The case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer availed the service of Opposite Party, since the date of installation of landline Telephone bearing No.4295764 by the Opposite Party to his professional office. The Opposite Party issued a bill relating to the period 17.05.2008 to 16.06.2008 bearing No.960356708 which was served through the agency of the Complainant. The monthly bill showing the amount of Rs.3570/-. As usual the Complainant had issued a cheque bearing No.0371508 of Sooda branch of Vijaya Bank for a sum of Rs.1,755/- dated 26.06.2008. The said cheque was issued against the bill dated 17.05.2008 to 16.6.2008.



24. After two days of the issue of the said crossed cheque the outgoing calls of the telephone was barred by the Opposite Party without any intimation. After enquiry the outgoing calls were restored for the time being subsequently after 2 days both incoming and outgoing calls were restricted without any communication. On 10.07.2008 the agent deputed by the Opposite Party returned the cheque issued by the Complainant saying that the cheque issued by the Complainant is of outstation cheque. The case of the Complainant is that in the earlier occasion also he had issued outstation cheque in respect of the monthly bills issued by the Opposite Party and all the cheques were accepted and encashed. There is no material to show that before barring the outgoing calls the intimation is given to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service without any intimation to the Complainant about the non acceptance of the out stationed cheque disconnected the telephone line.



25. The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant has not paid the entire amount covered under the bill. The bill dated 18.6.2008 issued for Rs.3,510/- as against which the Complainant had issued the cheque for Rs.1,755/- only. The cheque issued by the Complainant was dishonoured by the banker of the Opposite Party assigning the reason “not drawn on us”. As per the rules “no outstation cheque will be accepted by Bharati Airtel Limited and said cheque if received shall be returned”. But the Opposite Party has violated the rules by practice of accepting the outstation cheque.

Contd……8



26. Ex.C-2 is the cheque dated 26.06.2008 issued by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Party for Rs.1,755/- drawn on Sooda Branch of Vijaya Bank. Sooda Branch is an outstation but the Opposite Party has accepted the said cheque and sent it for collection. But due the negligence of the banker of the Opposite Party, said cheque has been sent for collection to the Udupi Branch, Vijaya Bank. The Udupi Branch Vijaya Bank issued an endorsement “not drawn on us” as per Ex.R-6. There is no endorsement or number on the cheque regarding the Core Bank Solution (CBS). If there is CBS facility cheque should have been sent for collection in any of the branches.


The fault has been committed by the Opposite Party instead of sending the crossed cheque to the Sooda Branch for collection it has been sent to Vijaya Bank, Udupi Branch for which the Complainant is not responsible. Opposite Party has violated its own conditions and accepted the cheque of outstation. Cheque was not rejected by the Opposite Party as it is sent to the wrong branch for collection same was not honoured. After collection of the cheque through the agent the Opposite Party could have return the same as it is outstation before presentation for collection.. The Complainant cannot be penalized for the mistake of the Opposite Party.



27 The Opposite Party has not replied the legal notice of the Complainant inspite of the receipt of the same as per Ex.C-6. The Opposite Party has not filed the affidavit in evidence. We are of the view that disconnection of the telephone service to the Complainant even after the receipt of the crossed cheque issued as usual by the Complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.



Point No.2 & 3:

28. In view of the affirmative answer to point No.1, we hold that the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs. Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.3,00,000/- towards the loss of earning. There are no materials to substantiate the loss of earnings to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, we are of the view that awarding Rs.5,000/- compensation towards the mental agony will meet the ends of justice.

Its quite strange.. but I some time back I saw Mr Mishra's complaint with full details of people he has sent his complaint to including the Nodal Officer.. Sunil Mittal, Ministry of I&B and 2 other people. His signature also inclued his complete conact details with his telephone number and email address. Suddenly I see that all that has disappreared. Who's job is it?

Hello,

Thanks for your feedback, we will surly check it.

Dear Customer,


This is to inform you that your concern has been noted and our team is eager to resolve it. In order to get to the resolution, we need to get in touch with you and gather more details about the concern. We are restricted by the absence of your contact details. Please write to us at airtelpresence@airtel.in with your contact details (address and landline or mobile phone number).

We assure you that we are committed to resolve the issue to your satisfaction.


Regards,

Mohsin Khan
Airtel Customer Service Team

This is to initimate to you that I am a railway personal and presently working as a CBS in railway departmenmt in suratgarh district ganganagar(rajasthan).I have obtained mobile connection from airtel dealer in suratgarh which number us 09602571376.this number was taken in the month of nov./dec.2009 by submitting the Identity proof i.e.voter id card.after that i received call from customer care executive for veriification of residential address but by mistake i told him my present address and after that my above said mobile number has been closed by your officers.I filled many times my complaints to your dealer in suratgarh and he assured me that your number is going to start in few days but all in vain and then I made calls to custer care executive but they dont care about my complaint.I have already taken another airtel connection on the same identity proof which number is 09636526491.so why you do not start my first number because both connection has been taken on same identity proof.
It is requested to you that kindly start my 09602571376 number with immediately effect and solve my problem in proper way otherwise i will be compled to file the complain in telecom regulatory authrity in india and in consumer court.

Aplicant
c p vashishth
Date:01/02/2010
place:Suratgarh(rajasthan)
Alternate number:-09636526491

i have taken the mobile connection of aritel and aubmitted all the valid paper to the seller of sim. but despite of number of followups my number 9602444027 is not working and all incmoing & outgoing calls are barred.

so please let me know the status and when my number will activated.

Sir
please sent me Mobail Ofice setting 3110c on 9602227267

Hello Sir/Madam,

I am a Vodafone customer ( Rishi Das, residing in Kolkata ) with nothing to do with Airtel .
About a month back, I got a call from an unknown number (9845326328) inquiring "Is this Namrata?". I replied that its a wrong number, since there is no Namrata in my entire family or friend's circle, as far as I know. Then the phone line was cut.

Since then I have got multiple calls from the same number which claims to be Airtel Legal Department. They keep telling me that I know some Namrata from Bangalore who has given my number as her alternate contact number and she has not paid her bill.

Inspite of my repeated refusal, they keep calling me, harrassing me using unprofessional language.

I have dropped a mail to the karanataka nodal officer, to Ombudsperson@bharti.in, to their customercare email address and every other email contact that I could collect from internet. But I have not received any response yet apart from a useless mail from 121 that says I am not their customer so they cannot do anything.

I fail to understand, why didn't they verify the alternate contact number when this so-called Namrata, whoever it is, applied for the connection?

I am thinking of filing a police complaint, not sure if that will help.

Could you please advise, what I can do in such a case to stop this harrasment caused by Airtel and teach them a lesson so that they standardise their processes of verification of alternate contact numbers before providing connection and not harrass strangers like me for no reason. I am absolutely frustrated with this and I being respectable person , am not used to the kind of roadside language they speak in the phone. What do I need to do if I want to take a legal course against them or any other suggestions would greatly help.

Rishi Das
Salt Lake
Kolkata
rishi1204@gmail.com

Dear sir

I am Vijay tiwari in jaipur.i bring to your notice that within 04 days some body his Mobil no8107120401 called me my bsnl mobil no 9413678318 he has been send on wanted massage also hence my family been upset. you are requested kindly look in this matter agin he do not call me his no & take series action,


Vijay tiwari

9413678318

I m sukalpa roy my airtel no is 9163809854. 10 day ago i recharge my no with 50 .. And i saw in my phone screen .. That full tt in 50 recharge. But i not get

Dear Sukalpa ,

This is to inform you that your concern listed 16 Feb. 2011 has been noted and our team is working on a resolution. At the outset, we apologize for the inconvenience faced by you. We will get in touch with you for further details of your concern as the need arises.


Regards
Rakesh Kumar
Airtel Presence (Airtel Customer Service Team)
Bharti Airtel Ltd
airtelpresence@airtel.in

Connect with us 24X7 and we will be happy to assist you with a swift resolution to your queries on all our products and services
Twitter - Bharti Airtel India (Airtel_Presence) on Twitter
Facebook - Airtel Presence | Facebook

Dear sukalpa roy ,

I would like to inform you that your concern listed 16 Feb. 2011, has been resolved. Should you have any queries please contact Airtel customer service at 121 or write to 121@airtelindia.com.

Regards
Rakesh Ranga
Airtel Presence (Airtel Customer Service Team)
Bharti Airtel Ltd
airtelpresence@airtel.in

Connect with us 24X7 and we will be happy to assist you with a swift resolution to your queries on all our products and services
Twitter - Bharti Airtel India (Airtel_Presence) on Twitter
Facebook - Airtel Presence | Facebook

Hi,

I have a airtel prepaid connection (8790568722) in Hyderabad. Few day back I received a message that AirtelTalkies is activated in ur account if u want to deactivate call toll free number. I deactivated the service. After 3 days I received the same message. When I check my balance I found it very less then expected. I called customer care and they told the service is active and balance is deducted. He told me that its activated since 21 march. He claimed that I have given the permission for activation. Please share the call record with on which I gave the permission for activation. This is clear case of IPC 420. I have dropped a mail to Nodal officer also but havent received any response. I want to avoid the legal battle but if you wont refund my money then I am ready to drag the matter in TRAI/Consumer court and every possible place.

Its my hard earned money and I will fight for it. What airtel is doing is not good. In a way you are destroying your Image. I wont suggest any one Airtel in future. Even I started using TataDocomo and happy with that. Earlier I was in Bangalore and used Vodafone for 4 years and Tata for 1 year and the service was gr8. After shifting to Hyderabad I gave try to Airtel but had a bad experience.

I hope necessary action wil be taken and i will get my money back. I have stoped using the phone till the issue get resolved.