Rahul Mahajan S/O Shri R.K. Mahajan,

Resident of House No. 38-C, Lane-1, Phase-1,

Sector-2, New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.



… Complainant.

Versus



1. Bhartiya Airtel Limited through its Managing Director C/o 11-A, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla 171009, H.P.



2. Mr. Sharli Phayil, CEO, Air Tel, 11-A, SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla 171009, H.P.



…Opposite Parties.








O R D E R:




Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of Mobile bearing No.98160-24400 having add on, number 98162-24400. He also took a new pre-paid No.98167-58256, which was activated by the OPs on the same day and he was using this number in connection with his profession. He further alleged that on, 16.08.2006, when he was traveling and coming back to Shimla from Una Via Nalagarh, received a telephonic call from OPs outsourcing agency/agents verifying the application given for obtaining connection No.98167-58256, then the complainant told the official of the OP, that it was no time to call and ask queries regarding outsourcing verification.



The complainant further proceeded to aver that when the application for obtaining new connection was given to the OPs, he had affixed two passport size photographs, his PAN and the mobile bill of mobile No.98160-244400, hence the entire information as required for getting a new connection had already been provided to the OPs, but the OPs, on, 18.08.2006, disconnected mobile No.98167-58256, despite the fact that there was a balance of Rs.60/- for making the calls and receiving the same, which was done vindictively by the OPs in connivance with the outsourcing agency. He further averred that the act of the OPs in disconnecting his number was illegal and arbitrary. Hence, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, jurisdiction, and estoppel. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant did avail mobile connection No.98167-58256 and if the complainant has received any call from outsourcing agency for verification, it was only done under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Telecommunications. They further contend that the mobile connection was disconnected due to the reason that despite after several requests, he refused to provide necessary information for the purpose of verification of the details filed by him in his application form. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, has, averred that the OP on the night of 16.08.2006 between 9.10 pm to 9.25 pm, when he was traveling in his vehicle towards Shimla, while taking the route from Una via Nalagarh, on, receiving, a call from the OP seeking to elicit from him verificatory information qua his credentials furnished by him to it, before obtaining the mobile connection by him, had requested the officials of the OP, that, the elicited information shall be furnished by him on the next day in the morning. In support of the said averment, the, complainant has filed an affidavit sworn by a co-occupant of the car, hence, the same comes to be adequately corroborated, as such, substantiated.

6. The OPs also do not specifically deny the fact of their official having sought information, as, detailed in the complaint, for, verifying his credentials, as, furnished by him in the submission form at the, time of his seeking mobile connection. The OPs, though has sought, to, vindicate, its, step for seeking over, the telephone the information as sought by the officials of the OPs, at, late hours of the night, being in pursuance to the directions issued by the Ministry of Communication Government of India, for obviating misuse of the telephone, as also, for the reason that the complainant had on earlier occasion not acceded to the request made by the OPs, for, furnishing the details, as were required by them.



However, the fact of the said details, as, earlier sought from the complainant by the officials of the OPs having been not acceded to by the complainant on earlier occasions, hence, necessitating the act on the part of the officials of the OPs having taken to call the complainant at late hours of night for verification of his credentials to which request the complainant had promised to accede, on, the next day in the morning , having not been proved by the cogent evidence to have been made earlier, the, act, of the, OPs to arbitrary and abruptly disconnect the mobile connection of the complainant and that, too, when a balance of Rs.60/- was existing in his account, which conclusion of existence of Rs.60/- in his account, has, been arrived at, for lack of repudiation of the said fact by the OPs, when such an averment is made in the complaint, as also when the details of the statement of account of the complainant being the best evidence has been withheld by the complainant, is, rendered unwarranted.

7. Even though, the complainant has not made out a case for awarding special damages in his favour, as he has averred in his complaint that he was having another mobile connection, hence, by the disconnection of the mobile bearing No.98167-58256, as afforded to him by the OPs, he, was in a position to contact his relatives and his clients, as such, suffered no huge financial loss. However, since some humiliation and harassment was caused by the OPs in disconnecting his mobile bearing No.98167-58256, therefore, damage hereinafter are awarded in his favour.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed in the following terms:-

i) That the OPs shall pay to the complainant, a just and reasonable amount of compensation, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case is quantified at Rs.5000/-.



ii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs to the complainant;



iii) That the OPs shall restore the mobile bearing No.98167-58256, forthwith, if not already restored;



iv) That the OPs shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



9. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room

Ms. Veena Thakur w/o Sh. Narender Thakur, Village Andhari, PO Summerhill, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla, presently posted as Superintendent, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001.



… Complainant.

Versus



The General Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Circle Office (Himachal ), 11A, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla 171009.



… Opposite Party.





O R D E R:





Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she obtained mobile connection bearing No.98050 31288 from the OP having roaming facility, as she had made programme of visiting Kerla, Kanyakumari, Madurai and Chennai. She alleged that when she was on her way, a telephonic call was received by her asking her that one or two documents are required to be furnished by her and requested that the requisite documents shall be furnished after reaching headquarter. The complainant further proceeded to aver that the OP instead of acceding to her request, debarred the incoming and outgoing facility of the aforesaid number, thereby causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to her. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP, in its written version to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections, vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint, and there being no deficiency in service. On merits, it is admitted that mobile No.98050 31288 with roaming facility was obtained by the complainant, but it is contended that the number was deactivated for negative verification and not due to want of documents. They further contend that it was deactivated with the norms/directives/guidelines of the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India and Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and IT, Government of India due to negative verification. As such, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained a mobile connection from the OP, which was carried by her while she had been touring South India during the period when the Hon’ble High Court where she, is, employed, had, closed for winter vacation. The mobile connection, hence, was required by her for communicating with her friends, relatives as well, as, for making reservation for accommodation for her stay at various places she had been visiting during the course of her tour to South India. Undisputedly, the OP on score of an adverse verification noticed by the official of the OP on visiting her residential address deactivated her cell phone.

6. The deactivation by the OP, is, contended to be anvilled upon the norms of the Ministry of Communication, Government of India necessitating checking of the identity of the subscriber for obviating its abuse. Obviously, since, the complainant was touring South India, hence, the residential premises, which may have been visited by the official of the OP, for, verification of the correctness of the particulars, as furnished by her, at, the time of her obtaining the cell phone connection, she, would have been found absent, hence, in the OP proceeding to abruptly deactivate her cell phone and that, too, without even proceeding to verify the identity of the complainant from her employer, which place of work, is, also recited in the form, as, furnished by the complainant to the OP, the act, of, the OP when they have not adduced evidence in proof of such a visit their, to, resort to abruptly terminate her cell phone, is, unwarranted, as only, in, the eventuality of a negative verification emanating on proved visit of the concerned official of the OP, at the official address as reflected by her in the form, such, deactivation would have been warranted.

7. The sole purpose of the complainant in obtaining the cell phone from the OP was to enable her to conveniently access to her friends and relatives, as well, as for making reservation for journey and stay, hence, in the absence of cell the phone, she was disabled to do so, as such, was subjected to pain, sufferings and harassment by the abrupt deactivation of her cell phone.

8. Though, the complainant besides compensation, has also sought direction against the OP to refund to her the charges paid by her to the OP for obtaining cell phone, yet, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification to issue such type of direction to the OP for refund of the charges expended by her in obtaining the cell phone. However, she is certainly entitled for just and reasonable compensation from the OP, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we proceed to assess at Rs.10,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1500/-, which shall be paid to the complainant by the OP, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Ms. R. Radhika,

A/C2, Ritechoice Ganesha,

No.33 D, Velachery Main Road,

Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. …. Complainant



Vs



Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Oceanic Tower, 101, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 028. .. … Opposite Parties







ORDER



1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant availed Airtel postpaid mobile connection from the opposite parties and also permitted the opposite parties to debit the Airtel bill from ECS. Since the opposite parties was sending excessive billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties to terminate the connection by letter dated 05.06.2003 and the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003. After two years of the termination of the connection the complainant, the opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant dated 20.04.2005 informing that she had committed default on payment of the bills and demanded payment of Rs.2,016.29p .


The complainant wanted the particulars retarding the payment but no statement has been sent by the opposite parties. She never defaulted any payment. Again the opposite parties sent legal notice demanding huge amount as arrears for usage of his cell phone. The opposite parties’ habit of sending wrong bills had caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence, she filed this complaint claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony together with cost of the complaint.

2. The opposite parties field version and contended inter alia that the complainant had not given mandate for directly debiting at bank account for the bills. She did not write a letter on 05.06.2003 intimating deactivation of her mobile phone connection on 09.06.2003. The complainant’s mobile connection was de-activated for non payment of the bills due amount of Rs.2016/-. As a mater of goodwill gesture, she was given discount of Rs.1150/- and asked to pay Rs.866.39. But she did not pay that amount. With a view to evade the payment, the complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. No document was filed by the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, she authorized the opposite parties to debit the mobile phone bills from her bank account. Since the opposite parties were sending excess billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties on 05.06.2003 with a request to terminate the connection and accordingly, the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003. After two years from the date of the complaint, opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant to pay Rs.2016.29p being the arrears of phone charges. The complainant would submit that she has never used the phone after 2003 and therefore there is no question of any talk of arrears.


Ex A1 is the letter from the opposite parties to the complainant in that letter the opposite parties would state that wrong credit was made and necessary credit has been posted into her account and the opposite parties had also sincerely regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Exhibits A2 and A3 are the bills. Ex A4 is the letter of the complainant to the opposite parties to deactivate her connection with effect from 10.06.2003.


But, the opposite parties by letter dated 20.04.2005(Ex A6) issued notice to the complainant asking her to pay Rs.2016.29 as service charges in respect of the mobile phone of the complainant. She replied by the letter dated 25.04.2005 (Ex A7) that she was not liable to pay any amount and also requested the opposite parties to state how she was liable to pay the said amount and sought for the details. But, instead of sending the details, the opposite parties sent another notice dated 28.06.2005 Ex A8 directing the complainant to pay the amount and whereupon she issued legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to furnish statement of details. But, thereafter nothing was sent by the opposite parties.


The opposite parties demanded Rs.2016.29 P being the arrears in the year 2005. Though the phone was deactivated from 09.06.2006, according to the para 8 of the version of filed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not send the details of the statement to show that the complainant is due Rs.2016/- on 09.06.2003. In the absence of any statement and taking into in to account of Ex A1, wherein the opposite parties apologized the complainant for sending wrong billing, we are of the view that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not sending the correct statement of bills to the complainant and demanded the amount without any details for which the complainant is not bound to pay.

6. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

S. Rathnavel

91, Uppara Street,

Coimbatore - 641 001. --- Complainant

Vs.

The Manager,

Bharati Airtel Limited,

Regd. Office

H 5/12, Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minar)

Mehrauli Road,

New Delhi – 110 030. --- Opposite Party



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr. S. Sakthi Ganapathy and Mr. S.Shanmugam, Advocates for complainant and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3,002/- and refund the deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,500/-, to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is residing at the above mentioned address and the opposite party has been providing services to the complainant vide two account Nos.10598117 & 10365665. The complainant has opted for an additional telephone line from the opposite party under the account No.10598117 and the same was provided by the opposite party collecting the requisite deposit. The new telephone connection was effected bearing No.4208185 but instead of grouping it under the existing account No.10598117 as requested by the complainant the opposite party has affected the new connection under a separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account No.10598117. A written complaint was given on 2.4.07 but there was no action from the opposite party.

2. The complainant made a request for the surrender of a new line vide letter dt.24.5.07. The surrender letter was followed by the opposite party’s Retention Department personal Mr.Karthikeyan and out of his assurance and guarantee to regroup the new line under the old account No.10598117 and for the refund of the additional charges, paid by the complainant due to the non-grouping of the new line, the complainant continued with the new line. But the problem was not sorted out even after 3 months as assured by Mr.Karthikeyan. The complainant sent an email to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any steps to refund the additional charge to the tune of Rs.3002.


The complainant was forced to sent the opposite party an registered letter on 27.12.07 for surrendering all the telephone connection and to refund the deposit amounts paid by the complainant for the above lines, the letter was received by the opposite party, after receipt of that letter the opposite party has only disconnect the above lines, but not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500 for the above said two lines. A legal notice was sent on 17.12.08 demanding remedies for the above said deficiencies but there was no reply. Hence this complaint.

3. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte. The opp.party was served notice on 9.7.09 for the hearing, dt.12.8.09. The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

4. This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum to pass an award directing the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3002 and refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and 3500 and to pay a sum of Rs.75000 as compensation and costs.

5. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party, opted for additional telephone line and the same was given with new telephone No.42078185 but instead of grouping it under the existing No.10598117 as requested by the complainant has affected the new connection under the separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account, inspite of surrendering the two lines the opposite party fails to refund the deposit amount.

6. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A24. The averment made in the complaint is proved by way of Proof Affidavit and documents. As stated by the complainant the new telephone connection No.4208185 was not grouped with the existing No. but a separate account No. ie. 12712527 was given. This causes additional expenditure to the complainant. As per ExhibitA8 the complainant surrendered his two connections but the opposite party has disconnected the above said lines, but not refunded the deposited amount. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and this causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant the additional charge of Rs.3002 and to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Rahul Mahajan S/O Shri R.K. Mahajan,

Resident of House No. 38-C, Lane-1, Phase-1,

Sector-2, New Shimla, Himachal Pradesh.



… Complainant.

Versus



1. Bhartiya Airtel Limited through its Managing Director C/o 11-A, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla 171009, H.P.



2. Mr. Sharli Phayil, CEO, Air Tel, 11-A, SDA Complex, Kasumpati, Shimla 171009, H.P.



…Opposite Parties.








O R D E R:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Sections 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he is subscriber of Mobile bearing No.98160-24400 having add on, number 98162-24400. He also took a new pre-paid No.98167-58256, which was activated by the OPs on the same day and he was using this number in connection with his profession. He further alleged that on, 16.08.2006, when he was traveling and coming back to Shimla from Una Via Nalagarh, received a telephonic call from OPs outsourcing agency/agents verifying the application given for obtaining connection No.98167-58256, then the complainant told the official of the OP, that it was no time to call and ask queries regarding outsourcing verification.


The complainant further proceeded to aver that when the application for obtaining new connection was given to the OPs, he had affixed two passport size photographs, his PAN and the mobile bill of mobile No.98160-244400, hence the entire information as required for getting a new connection had already been provided to the OPs, but the OPs, on, 18.08.2006, disconnected mobile No.98167-58256, despite the fact that there was a balance of Rs.60/- for making the calls and receiving the same, which was done vindictively by the OPs in connivance with the outsourcing agency. He further averred that the act of the OPs in disconnecting his number was illegal and arbitrary. Hence, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Company and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, jurisdiction, and estoppel. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant did avail mobile connection No.98167-58256 and if the complainant has received any call from outsourcing agency for verification, it was only done under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Communications and IT Department of Telecommunications. They further contend that the mobile connection was disconnected due to the reason that despite after several requests, he refused to provide necessary information for the purpose of verification of the details filed by him in his application form. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The complainant, has, averred that the OP on the night of 16.08.2006 between 9.10 pm to 9.25 pm, when he was traveling in his vehicle towards Shimla, while taking the route from Una via Nalagarh, on, receiving, a call from the OP seeking to elicit from him verificatory information qua his credentials furnished by him to it, before obtaining the mobile connection by him, had requested the officials of the OP, that, the elicited information shall be furnished by him on the next day in the morning. In support of the said averment, the, complainant has filed an affidavit sworn by a co-occupant of the car, hence, the same comes to be adequately corroborated, as such, substantiated.

6. The OPs also do not specifically deny the fact of their official having sought information, as, detailed in the complaint, for, verifying his credentials, as, furnished by him in the submission form at the, time of his seeking mobile connection. The OPs, though has sought, to, vindicate, its, step for seeking over, the telephone the information as sought by the officials of the OPs, at, late hours of the night, being in pursuance to the directions issued by the Ministry of Communication Government of India, for obviating misuse of the telephone, as also, for the reason that the complainant had on earlier occasion not acceded to the request made by the OPs, for, furnishing the details, as were required by them.


However, the fact of the said details, as, earlier sought from the complainant by the officials of the OPs having been not acceded to by the complainant on earlier occasions, hence, necessitating the act on the part of the officials of the OPs having taken to call the complainant at late hours of night for verification of his credentials to which request the complainant had promised to accede, on, the next day in the morning , having not been proved by the cogent evidence to have been made earlier, the, act, of the, OPs to arbitrary and abruptly disconnect the mobile connection of the complainant and that, too, when a balance of Rs.60/- was existing in his account, which conclusion of existence of Rs.60/- in his account, has, been arrived at, for lack of repudiation of the said fact by the OPs, when such an averment is made in the complaint, as also when the details of the statement of account of the complainant being the best evidence has been withheld by the complainant, is, rendered unwarranted.

7. Even though, the complainant has not made out a case for awarding special damages in his favour, as he has averred in his complaint that he was having another mobile connection, hence, by the disconnection of the mobile bearing No.98167-58256, as afforded to him by the OPs, he, was in a position to contact his relatives and his clients, as such, suffered no huge financial loss. However, since some humiliation and harassment was caused by the OPs in disconnecting his mobile bearing No.98167-58256, therefore, damage hereinafter are awarded in his favour.

8. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed in the following terms:-

i) That the OPs shall pay to the complainant, a just and reasonable amount of compensation, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case is quantified at Rs.5000/-.



ii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs to the complainant;



iii) That the OPs shall restore the mobile bearing No.98167-58256, forthwith, if not already restored;



iv) That the OPs shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;



9. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Ms. Veena Thakur w/o Sh. Narender Thakur, Village Andhari, PO Summerhill, Tehsil Shimla, District Shimla, presently posted as Superintendent, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-171001.



… Complainant.

Versus



The General Manager, Bharti Airtel Limited, Circle Office (Himachal ), 11A, SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla 171009.



… Opposite Party.






O R D E R:


This instant complaint, has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12, of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that she obtained mobile connection bearing No.98050 31288 from the OP having roaming facility, as she had made programme of visiting Kerla, Kanyakumari, Madurai and Chennai.


She alleged that when she was on her way, a telephonic call was received by her asking her that one or two documents are required to be furnished by her and requested that the requisite documents shall be furnished after reaching headquarter. The complainant further proceeded to aver that the OP instead of acceding to her request, debarred the incoming and outgoing facility of the aforesaid number, thereby causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony to her. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP, in its written version to the complaint, raised various preliminary objections, vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint, and there being no deficiency in service. On merits, it is admitted that mobile No.98050 31288 with roaming facility was obtained by the complainant, but it is contended that the number was deactivated for negative verification and not due to want of documents. They further contend that it was deactivated with the norms/directives/guidelines of the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India and Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and IT, Government of India due to negative verification. As such, it is denied that there was any deficiency in service on their part or that.

3. Thereafter the parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also, thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case meticulously.

5. It is not disputed that the complainant had obtained a mobile connection from the OP, which was carried by her while she had been touring South India during the period when the Hon’ble High Court where she, is, employed, had, closed for winter vacation. The mobile connection, hence, was required by her for communicating with her friends, relatives as well, as, for making reservation for accommodation for her stay at various places she had been visiting during the course of her tour to South India. Undisputedly, the OP on score of an adverse verification noticed by the official of the OP on visiting her residential address deactivated her cell phone.

6. The deactivation by the OP, is, contended to be anvilled upon the norms of the Ministry of Communication, Government of India necessitating checking of the identity of the subscriber for obviating its abuse. Obviously, since, the complainant was touring South India, hence, the residential premises, which may have been visited by the official of the OP, for, verification of the correctness of the particulars, as furnished by her, at, the time of her obtaining the cell phone connection, she, would have been found absent, hence, in the OP proceeding to abruptly deactivate her cell phone and that, too, without even proceeding to verify the identity of the complainant from her employer, which place of work, is, also recited in the form, as, furnished by the complainant to the OP, the act, of, the OP when they have not adduced evidence in proof of such a visit their, to, resort to abruptly terminate her cell phone, is, unwarranted, as only, in, the eventuality of a negative verification emanating on proved visit of the concerned official of the OP, at the official address as reflected by her in the form, such, deactivation would have been warranted.

7. The sole purpose of the complainant in obtaining the cell phone from the OP was to enable her to conveniently access to her friends and relatives, as well, as for making reservation for journey and stay, hence, in the absence of cell the phone, she was disabled to do so, as such, was subjected to pain, sufferings and harassment by the abrupt deactivation of her cell phone.

8. Though, the complainant besides compensation, has also sought direction against the OP to refund to her the charges paid by her to the OP for obtaining cell phone, yet, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find no justification to issue such type of direction to the OP for refund of the charges expended by her in obtaining the cell phone. However, she is certainly entitled for just and reasonable compensation from the OP, which in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we proceed to assess at Rs.10,000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs.1500/-, which shall be paid to the complainant by the OP, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Announced on this, the 14th day of September, 2009.

Thursday, the 17th day of September, 2009

S. Rathnavel

91, Uppara Street,

Coimbatore - 641 001. --- Complainant

Vs.

The Manager,

Bharati Airtel Limited,

Regd. Office

H 5/12, Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minar)

Mehrauli Road,

New Delhi – 110 030. --- Opposite Party



This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr. S. Sakthi Ganapathy and Mr. S.Shanmugam, Advocates for complainant and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3,002/- and refund the deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,500/-, to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is residing at the above mentioned address and the opposite party has been providing services to the complainant vide two account Nos.10598117 & 10365665. The complainant has opted for an additional telephone line from the opposite party under the account No.10598117 and the same was provided by the opposite party collecting the requisite deposit. The new telephone connection was effected bearing No.4208185 but instead of grouping it under the existing account No.10598117 as requested by the complainant the opposite party has affected the new connection under a separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account No.10598117. A written complaint was given on 2.4.07 but there was no action from the opposite party.

2. The complainant made a request for the surrender of a new line vide letter dt.24.5.07. The surrender letter was followed by the opposite party’s Retention Department personal Mr.Karthikeyan and out of his assurance and guarantee to regroup the new line under the old account No.10598117 and for the refund of the additional charges, paid by the complainant due to the non-grouping of the new line, the complainant continued with the new line. But the problem was not sorted out even after 3 months as assured by Mr.Karthikeyan. The complainant sent an email to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any steps to refund the additional charge to the tune of Rs.3002.


The complainant was forced to sent the opposite party an registered letter on 27.12.07 for surrendering all the telephone connection and to refund the deposit amounts paid by the complainant for the above lines, the letter was received by the opposite party, after receipt of that letter the opposite party has only disconnect the above lines, but not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500 for the above said two lines. A legal notice was sent on 17.12.08 demanding remedies for the above said deficiencies but there was no reply. Hence this complaint.

3. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte. The opp.party was served notice on 9.7.09 for the hearing, dt.12.8.09. The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

4. This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum to pass an award directing the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3002 and refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and 3500 and to pay a sum of Rs.75000 as compensation and costs.

5. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party, opted for additional telephone line and the same was given with new telephone No.42078185 but instead of grouping it under the existing No.10598117 as requested by the complainant has affected the new connection under the separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account, inspite of surrendering the two lines the opposite party fails to refund the deposit amount.

6. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A24. The averment made in the complaint is proved by way of Proof Affidavit and documents. As stated by the complainant the new telephone connection No.4208185 was not grouped with the existing No. but a separate account No. ie. 12712527 was given. This causes additional expenditure to the complainant. As per ExhibitA8 the complainant surrendered his two connections but the opposite party has disconnected the above said lines, but not refunded the deposited amount. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and this causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant the additional charge of Rs.3002 and to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Sir,

Kindly refer my letter on 30 Aug 09 given to M/s Bharti airtel as below.
I am being constanly asked for wrong billing amount and have to tolerate harrasement from various airtel executives thru wrong notices and telephones. Being a doctor, i have to rush to emergencies and intensive care treatments and this damages my professional reputation and also disturbs my mental situation.

Request your help asap pls.

Attached letter as below:


To, Date: 30th August 2009.

The Manager
Airtel.



Re: The outstanding dues of my Mobile nos.: +91-9662501318-19.


Dear Sir,

I, Dr. Darshan Patwari am writing you this to inform you that since last 2 to 3 months I have been very frequently harassed by Airtel people regarding the outstanding payment of my previous mobile nos. 9662501318-19. Sir, both of these numbers are basically of corporate CUG Bill Plan that I had been given in December 2008. The Bill plan which was offered from your sales executive Mr. Mukesh Dube was

Fix Rental of Rs. 125/- p.m.
Free 125 minutes every month (for Airtel to any mobile or landline)
Free 100 messages per month.

When I felt that the bills are not as per my actual Bill plan, I visited your Main office in Bharti House some 4 months before. I inquired about the matter and came to know that by mistake the scheme was not activated in my account and I was paying excess bills for 5 to 6 months by your customer care executive (Ms. Priya). Your sales executive Mr. Mukesh Dube also committed that the mistake was from his side and the excess amount (approximately Rs. 900/- to Rs.1000/-) would be credited in my account in a day or two as a waver off. I did wait for 2 weeks but no such thing happened. After that I tried to contact Mr. Dube number of times but he didn’t receive any of my calls. Finally I called the customer care centre and asked them to terminate both of my connections on 10th July.

Sir, presently I am having 6 Airtel connections in my family and I have been using them since more than 5 years. If you check your records you will notice that till date I have made all payments with most regularity and accuracy. I very strongly believe that delayed Bill payments or unpaying the bills don’t suit me or my profession, but paying the excess bills foolishly doesn’t suite me either. That is why I request you to go through this matter and take some positive steps which can prevent me to take any legal action.




Dr. Darshan Patwari.

Ms. R. Radhika,

A/C2, Ritechoice Ganesha,

No.33 D, Velachery Main Road,

Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. …. Complainant



Vs



Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Oceanic Tower, 101, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 028. .. … Opposite Parties




ORDER



1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant availed Airtel postpaid mobile connection from the opposite parties and also permitted the opposite parties to debit the Airtel bill from ECS. Since the opposite parties was sending excessive billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties to terminate the connection by letter dated 05.06.2003 and the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003. After two years of the termination of the connection the complainant, the opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant dated 20.04.2005 informing that she had committed default on payment of the bills and demanded payment of Rs.2,016.29p .


The complainant wanted the particulars retarding the payment but no statement has been sent by the opposite parties. She never defaulted any payment. Again the opposite parties sent legal notice demanding huge amount as arrears for usage of his cell phone. The opposite parties’ habit of sending wrong bills had caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence, she filed this complaint claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony together with cost of the complaint.

2. The opposite parties field version and contended inter alia that the complainant had not given mandate for directly debiting at bank account for the bills. She did not write a letter on 05.06.2003 intimating deactivation of her mobile phone connection on 09.06.2003. The complainant’s mobile connection was de-activated for non payment of the bills due amount of Rs.2016/-. As a mater of goodwill gesture, she was given discount of Rs.1150/- and asked to pay Rs.866.39. But she did not pay that amount. With a view to evade the payment, the complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. No document was filed by the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, she authorized the opposite parties to debit the mobile phone bills from her bank account. Since the opposite parties were sending excess billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties on 05.06.2003 with a request to terminate the connection and accordingly, the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003. After two years from the date of the complaint, opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant to pay Rs.2016.29p being the arrears of phone charges.


The complainant would submit that she has never used the phone after 2003 and therefore there is no question of any talk of arrears. Ex A1 is the letter from the opposite parties to the complainant in that letter the opposite parties would state that wrong credit was made and necessary credit has been posted into her account and the opposite parties had also sincerely regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Exhibits A2 and A3 are the bills. Ex A4 is the letter of the complainant to the opposite parties to deactivate her connection with effect from 10.06.2003.


But, the opposite parties by letter dated 20.04.2005(Ex A6) issued notice to the complainant asking her to pay Rs.2016.29 as service charges in respect of the mobile phone of the complainant. She replied by the letter dated 25.04.2005 (Ex A7) that she was not liable to pay any amount and also requested the opposite parties to state how she was liable to pay the said amount and sought for the details. But, instead of sending the details, the opposite parties sent another notice dated 28.06.2005 Ex A8 directing the complainant to pay the amount and whereupon she issued legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to furnish statement of details. But, thereafter nothing was sent by the opposite parties.


The opposite parties demanded Rs.2016.29 P being the arrears in the year 2005. Though the phone was deactivated from 09.06.2006, according to the para 8 of the version of filed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not send the details of the statement to show that the complainant is due Rs.2016/- on 09.06.2003. In the absence of any statement and taking into in to account of Ex A1, wherein the opposite parties apologized the complainant for sending wrong billing, we are of the view that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not sending the correct statement of bills to the complainant and demanded the amount without any details for which the complainant is not bound to pay.

Peethani Venkata Rao

S/o Nagabhushanam, Hindu, male,

Aged 40 years, Business R/o yerraicheruvu

Tanuku Mandal, W.G.Dist., -- Complainant



And



AIR TEL Branch

Rep., by its Branch Manager

Beside Town Hall, Rastrapathi Road

Tanuku, W.G.Dist., -- Opposite Party





O R D E R



This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the loss sustained in business, for mental agony and for deficiency in service together with costs of the complaint. The averments of the complaint in brief are that :

2. The complainant for his business necessities obtained a SIM Card with allotted No.9908410463 from the opposite party in the month of May, 2008 on payment of necessary amount. However, in the month of December, 2008 the number allotted to the complainant was again re-allotted to another person as such, the complainant could not receive calls from his customers and relatives and thereby he sustained heavy loss in his business due to the failure of communication with his clients.


The complainant made efforts to get revival of his cell number, but when it proved to be futile, on 14-5-2009 he got issued a registered notice to the opposite party for revival of his cell number. The opposite party having received the notice on 15-5-2009 not only failed to revive the cell number but also failed to give any reply even and ultimately kept quite. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The opposite party having received the notice on complaint ultimately remained exparte.

4. The complainant in support of his case filed his proof affidavit with the same contentions as mentioned in the complaint and got marked Ex A.1 to Ex A.3.

5. Now the points for determination are :

1) Whether the deficiency in service as alleged against the opposite party is proved ?



2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs ?



3) To what relief ?

POINT No: 1 & 2 :



It is the case of the complainant that in the month of May, 2008 he obtained a pre-paid SIM card (life long) with allotted number 9908410463 from the opposite party on payment of necessary amount for the purpose of eaking out his livelihood by doing business in various fields such as Paddy, Cattle and kirana etc and through which he was getting an income of Rs.30,000/- pm.,. In support of his contention the complainant got marked the SIM Card as Ex A.3. So, it is a fact clearly established by the complainant that he obtained the pre-paid SIM card in question from the opposite party in the month of May, 2008. it is the further case of the complainant that in the month of December, 2008, the number allotted to him was re-allotted to another person by the opposite party as such, he could not receive calls from his customers and relatives and thereby sustained heavy loss in his business.


That apart, it is the case of the complainant that when his efforts to get revival of his cell number proved to be futile, he got issued a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to pay compensation for the loss sustained by him in the business due to abrupt allotment of his SIM card number to another person. Ex A.2 office copy of the said legal notice got marked by the complainant also establishes the contention of the complainant. Ex A.1 is the postal acknowledgement passed by the opposite party in token of receipt of the legal notice original of Ex A.2 got issued by the complainant.


The further case of the complainant is also that inspite of receipt of the legal notice by the opposite party under acknowledgement Ex A.1, the opposite party did not comply his request and also failed to give even any reply which amounts to deficiency in service. It is also clearly established by the complainant that the opposite party even after receipt of the legal notice also not complied the request made by the complainant and further more the opposite party on receipt of notice on the complaint also remained exparte.


So, the non-giving any reply even to the legal notice got issued by the complainant and his remaining exparte even after receipt of the notice on the complaint itself amounts to an admission to come to a firm conclusion that there is a deficiency on the part of the opposite party in rendering service to the complainant. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant has clearly established the case against the opposite party with regard to the deficiency in service. The point is answered accordingly.

POINT No;2

Therefore, in view of the finding given on Point No,1, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him, but, however, the complainant except his self styled evidence did not produce any positive proof with regard to his nature of business he is conducting and quantum of earnings there from. Therefore, taking into consideration of the submissions made by the complainant, we are of view that awarding of some reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/- will meet the ends of justice.

Ms. R. Radhika,

A/C2, Ritechoice Ganesha,

No.33 D, Velachery Main Road,

Velachery, Chennai – 600 042. …. Complainant



Vs



Bharati Airtel Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director,

Oceanic Tower, 101, Santhome High Road,

Chennai – 600 028. .. … Opposite Parties









ORDER



1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant availed Airtel postpaid mobile connection from the opposite parties and also permitted the opposite parties to debit the Airtel bill from ECS. Since the opposite parties was sending excessive billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties to terminate the connection by letter dated 05.06.2003 and the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003. After two years of the termination of the connection the complainant, the opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant dated 20.04.2005 informing that she had committed default on payment of the bills and demanded payment of Rs.2,016.29p .


The complainant wanted the particulars retarding the payment but no statement has been sent by the opposite parties. She never defaulted any payment. Again the opposite parties sent legal notice demanding huge amount as arrears for usage of his cell phone. The opposite parties’ habit of sending wrong bills had caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence, she filed this complaint claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony together with cost of the complaint.

2. The opposite parties field version and contended inter alia that the complainant had not given mandate for directly debiting at bank account for the bills. She did not write a letter on 05.06.2003 intimating deactivation of her mobile phone connection on 09.06.2003. The complainant’s mobile connection was de-activated for non payment of the bills due amount of Rs.2016/-. As a mater of goodwill gesture, she was given discount of Rs.1150/- and asked to pay Rs.866.39. But she did not pay that amount. With a view to evade the payment, the complainant has filed this complaint for deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. No document was filed by the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant availed the service of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, she authorized the opposite parties to debit the mobile phone bills from her bank account. Since the opposite parties were sending excess billing she wrote a letter to the opposite parties on 05.06.2003 with a request to terminate the connection and accordingly, the connection was terminated on 10.06.2003.


After two years from the date of the complaint, opposite parties wrote a letter to the complainant to pay Rs.2016.29p being the arrears of phone charges. The complainant would submit that she has never used the phone after 2003 and therefore there is no question of any talk of arrears.


Ex A1 is the letter from the opposite parties to the complainant in that letter the opposite parties would state that wrong credit was made and necessary credit has been posted into her account and the opposite parties had also sincerely regretted for the inconvenience caused to the complainant. Exhibits A2 and A3 are the bills. Ex A4 is the letter of the complainant to the opposite parties to deactivate her connection with effect from 10.06.2003. But, the opposite parties by letter dated 20.04.2005(Ex A6) issued notice to the complainant asking her to pay Rs.2016.29 as service charges in respect of the mobile phone of the complainant.


She replied by the letter dated 25.04.2005 (Ex A7) that she was not liable to pay any amount and also requested the opposite parties to state how she was liable to pay the said amount and sought for the details. But, instead of sending the details, the opposite parties sent another notice dated 28.06.2005 Ex A8 directing the complainant to pay the amount and whereupon she issued legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to furnish statement of details. But, thereafter nothing was sent by the opposite parties. The opposite parties demanded Rs.2016.29 P being the arrears in the year 2005.


Though the phone was deactivated from 09.06.2006, according to the para 8 of the version of filed by the opposite parties, the opposite parties did not send the details of the statement to show that the complainant is due Rs.2016/- on 09.06.2003. In the absence of any statement and taking into in to account of Ex A1, wherein the opposite parties apologized the complainant for sending wrong billing, we are of the view that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not sending the correct statement of bills to the complainant and demanded the amount without any details for which the complainant is not bound to pay.

6. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

S. Rathnavel

91, Uppara Street,

Coimbatore - 641 001. --- Complainant

Vs.

The Manager,

Bharati Airtel Limited,

Regd. Office

H 5/12, Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minar)

Mehrauli Road,

New Delhi – 110 030. --- Opposite Party




ORDER





1. The complainant is residing at the above mentioned address and the opposite party has been providing services to the complainant vide two account Nos.10598117 & 10365665. The complainant has opted for an additional telephone line from the opposite party under the account No.10598117 and the same was provided by the opposite party collecting the requisite deposit. The new telephone connection was effected bearing No.4208185 but instead of grouping it under the existing account No.10598117 as requested by the complainant the opposite party has affected the new connection under a separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account No.10598117. A written complaint was given on 2.4.07 but there was no action from the opposite party.

2. The complainant made a request for the surrender of a new line vide letter dt.24.5.07. The surrender letter was followed by the opposite party’s Retention Department personal Mr.Karthikeyan and out of his assurance and guarantee to regroup the new line under the old account No.10598117 and for the refund of the additional charges, paid by the complainant due to the non-grouping of the new line, the complainant continued with the new line. But the problem was not sorted out even after 3 months as assured by Mr.Karthikeyan. The complainant sent an email to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any steps to refund the additional charge to the tune of Rs.3002.


The complainant was forced to sent the opposite party an registered letter on 27.12.07 for surrendering all the telephone connection and to refund the deposit amounts paid by the complainant for the above lines, the letter was received by the opposite party, after receipt of that letter the opposite party has only disconnect the above lines, but not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500 for the above said two lines. A legal notice was sent on 17.12.08 demanding remedies for the above said deficiencies but there was no reply. Hence this complaint.

3. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte. The opp.party was served notice on 9.7.09 for the hearing, dt.12.8.09. The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

4. This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum to pass an award directing the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3002 and refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and 3500 and to pay a sum of Rs.75000 as compensation and costs.

5. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party, opted for additional telephone line and the same was given with new telephone No.42078185 but instead of grouping it under the existing No.10598117 as requested by the complainant has affected the new connection under the separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account, inspite of surrendering the two lines the opposite party fails to refund the deposit amount.

6. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A24. The averment made in the complaint is proved by way of Proof Affidavit and documents. As stated by the complainant the new telephone connection No.4208185 was not grouped with the existing No. but a separate account No. ie. 12712527 was given. This causes additional expenditure to the complainant. As per ExhibitA8 the complainant surrendered his two connections but the opposite party has disconnected the above said lines, but not refunded the deposited amount. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and this causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant the additional charge of Rs.3002 and to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Thursday, the 17th day of September, 2009

S. Rathnavel

91, Uppara Street,

Coimbatore - 641 001. --- Complainant

Vs.

The Manager,

Bharati Airtel Limited,

Regd. Office

H 5/12, Qutab Ambience (at Qutab Minar)

Mehrauli Road,

New Delhi – 110 030. --- Opposite Party




ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3,002/- and refund the deposit amount of Rs. 5,000/- and 3,500/-, to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.


1. The complainant is residing at the above mentioned address and the opposite party has been providing services to the complainant vide two account Nos.10598117 & 10365665. The complainant has opted for an additional telephone line from the opposite party under the account No.10598117 and the same was provided by the opposite party collecting the requisite deposit.


The new telephone connection was effected bearing No.4208185 but instead of grouping it under the existing account No.10598117 as requested by the complainant the opposite party has affected the new connection under a separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account No.10598117. A written complaint was given on 2.4.07 but there was no action from the opposite party.

2. The complainant made a request for the surrender of a new line vide letter dt.24.5.07. The surrender letter was followed by the opposite party’s Retention Department personal Mr.Karthikeyan and out of his assurance and guarantee to regroup the new line under the old account No.10598117 and for the refund of the additional charges, paid by the complainant due to the non-grouping of the new line, the complainant continued with the new line. But the problem was not sorted out even after 3 months as assured by Mr.Karthikeyan. The complainant sent an email to the opposite party, but the opposite party did not take any steps to refund the additional charge to the tune of Rs.3002.


The complainant was forced to sent the opposite party an registered letter on 27.12.07 for surrendering all the telephone connection and to refund the deposit amounts paid by the complainant for the above lines, the letter was received by the opposite party, after receipt of that letter the opposite party has only disconnect the above lines, but not refunded the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500 for the above said two lines. A legal notice was sent on 17.12.08 demanding remedies for the above said deficiencies but there was no reply. Hence this complaint.

3. The complainant filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A24 was marked and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte. The opp.party was served notice on 9.7.09 for the hearing, dt.12.8.09. The opposite party did not appear either in person or through his counsel, and has not filed any version on his side till the expiry of statutory period.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?



ISSUE 1

4. This complaint is filed by the Complainant praying this Forum to pass an award directing the opposite party to refund the additional charges of Rs.3002 and refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and 3500 and to pay a sum of Rs.75000 as compensation and costs.

5. The complainant has availed the service of the opposite party, opted for additional telephone line and the same was given with new telephone No.42078185 but instead of grouping it under the existing No.10598117 as requested by the complainant has affected the new connection under the separate account No.12712527. The complainant was forced to pay additional charges under the old account, inspite of surrendering the two lines the opposite party fails to refund the deposit amount.

6. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with Ex.A1 to A24. The averment made in the complaint is proved by way of Proof Affidavit and documents. As stated by the complainant the new telephone connection No.4208185 was not grouped with the existing No. but a separate account No. ie. 12712527 was given. This causes additional expenditure to the complainant. As per ExhibitA8 the complainant surrendered his two connections but the opposite party has disconnected the above said lines, but not refunded the deposited amount. The act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and this causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief.

7. In the result, we direct the opposite party to refund to the complainant the additional charge of Rs.3002 and to refund the deposit amount of Rs.5000 and Rs.3500, to pay a sum of Rs.15,000 by way of compensation towards mental agony and cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Acma Cycle Industries, Prop. United Trade & Commercial Pvt. Ltd.), C-76, Phase-V, Focal Point, Ludhiana-141010 through V.S. Sharma, its General Manager.



…..Complainant.

Versus



1- M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot no.C-25, Phase-II, Industrial Area, Mohali through its Chief Executive Officer.

2- M/s Bharti Airtel Limited, Ferozepur Road, opp. Milk Plant, Ludhiana through its in charge.

….Opposite parties.








O R D E R









1- In this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, brief facts are that complainant, a private limited company, instituted in the name of M/s United Trade & Commercial Pvt. Ltd., having regd. Office at G.S. Road, Guwahati and company has appointed and nominated Sh. V.S. Sharma its general manager to look after its day to days functioning. Averred that complainant got 4 telephone connections with wireless sets from opposite party, vide numbers 98767-29257, 98767-39257, 98766-99257, 98766-39257 against payment of Rs.3288/- vide cheque no.423907 dated 9.1.2007 drawn on HDFC Bank. But the sets were of poor quality and did not function properly, qua which number of complaints were made to opposite party, but to no effect.


Finally, complainant decided to surrender these sets to opposite party which he did on 22.2,2007 and requested opposite party, to refund security amount after adjustment of the user charges. However, complainant did not received bill qua period of using the sets. But he received legal notice dated 13.12.2007 from M/s Lex Icons, 47, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, a firm of lawyers, asking him to pay certain outstanding amount towards user charges of the telephones. Complainant replied said notice vide letter dt. 14.1.2008, narrating factual position and thereafter, receive no communication in this regard.


All of a sudden on 23.6.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., Mr. V.K. Sharma, G.M. of complainant received telephone call from mobile no.09911509523 from one Mr. Vishal Choudhary of Delhi, informing Mr. Sharma that he along with a police team from Delhi police were coming to Ludhiana, to arrest the complainant, as some non-bailable warrants were got issued against him on account of non payment of charges of telephone bills and to avoid arrest, complainant should deposit outstanding amount of Rs.10,658.86 before 1.00 p.m. and should talk Ms. Kalpana Joshi Adv. on her mobile no.09999837396, in order to drop arrest proceedings. On talking Ms. Kalpana Joshi, complainant was informed about outstanding dues pertaining to period for which, no bills were received by them.


She did not listen version of Mr. V.K. Sharma and kept on threatening with arrest under the garb of allegedly procured non-bailable warrants. As per Ms. Kalpana Joshi, user charges were claimed for the period from February, 2007 to October, 207. In such circumstances, complainant deposited Rs.10,660/- with opposite party vide receipt no.107 08044856 dated 23.6.2008, under coercion, simply to avoid any embarrassing situation. Claiming such act of opposite party amounting to deficiency in service, complainant has sought refund of Rs.10,660/- along with Rs.75000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2- In reply, opposite party pleaded that complainant has not come with clean hands, complaint is filed to harass the opposite party, the same is vague, frivolous and false. Due to involvement of complex question of law and facts, it is triable by civil court. It is pleaded that numbers of complainant were disconnected on account of dishonor of cheque bearing no.424008 dated 4.8.2007 of HDFC Bank, for Rs.7400/-, for payment of outstanding against his account, for the reason that his account had been closed with the bank. Complainant was informed qua dishonor of the cheque and on non payment of dues, his telephone numbers were barred on 8.8.2007.


As per Rule 443 of the Telegraph Rules, “if on or before the due date, the rent or other charges in respect of the telephone services provide4d are not paid by the subscriber in accordance with these rules, or bills for charges in respect of calls (local and trunk) or phonograms or other dues from subscriber are not duly paid by him, any telephone or telephones or any telex services rented by him, may be disconnected without notice”. It is denied that telephone sets provided by opposite parry were of poor quality. As per record of opposite party, complainant never deposited FWP handsets with them. Opposite party served legal notice on complainant, asking him to pay Rs.10658/- as outstanding dues, which also included Rs.7400/- against which cheque no.424008 dated 4.8.2007 for Rs.7400/- was issued.


It is denied that any reply to legal notice was sent by complainant. It is further denied that any call mentioned by complainant in his complaint, was made by opposite party nor any person named Vishal Choudhary bearing no.09911509523 is associated with opposite party. Further denied that Ms Kalpana Joshi Adv. had ever called complainant from mobile no.09999837396. Further, connections were used for commercial purposes and so, dispute does not come under Consumer Protection Act. Rest of the allegations are denied being wrong and false and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3- To prove his case, complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit and documents. However, no evidence was led by the opposite party despite availing sufficient adjournments, resulting in closure of their evidence by order.

4- Parties through counsel stood heard and record perused.

5- Complainant argued that he was given telephone numbers 98767-29257, 98767-39257, 98766-99257, 98766-39257 and had remitted Rs.3288/- to the company vide cheque no.423907 dated 9.1.2007 drawn on HDFC Bank Ltd. And wireless sets provided by the company were of poor quality and did not function properly and the complainant lodged complaints number of times, for removal of defects, but no proper response was given by opposite party and due to non-cooperative attitude of officials, complainant got the said telephones disconnected and surrendered to the company on 22.2.2007 and also requested the company to refund security amount after adjustment of the amount of user charges for said telephone numbers mentioned above.


Also argued that he received legal notice dated 13.1.2007 from M/s Lex Icons, 47, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh, a firm of lawyers, asking him to pay certain outstanding amount towards user charges of the telephones, which complainant replied on 14.1.2008 and in reply, factual position was narrated in detail. Further, complainant received telephone call from mobile no.09911509523 by Sh. V.K. Sharma, from one Mr. Vishal Chaudhary from Delhi, who told complainant that he along with police team from Delhi are coming to Ludhiana, to arrest the complainant and some non bailable warrants had been issued on account of non payment of charges of said telephones.


Also agued that in order to avoid arrest, he deposited outstanding amount of Rs.10658/-, so that proceeding initiated for arrest of complainant, be got dropped. Also argued that user charges in the telephone were claimed for the period from February, 2007 to October, 2007 and it is a fact that telephones were not at all used by officials of the complainant. Whereas complainant has requested the company to disconnect the telephones on 22.2.2007 and the telephones sets have been submitted to opposite party and received by Mr. Jatinder Singh, Airtel R.O., Ludhiana(Mobile No.98760-49463) on 25.2.2007(Ex.C2). Therefore, the bill issued for this period is illegal. Amount got deposited from complainant under threat of arrest is illegal and it be refunded.

6- Opposite party argued that numbers of the complainant were disconnected on account of dishonor of cheque bearing no.424008 dated 4.8.2007 of HDFC Bank , amounting to Rs.7400/- for payment of outstanding dues against his connections, for the reason that his account has been closed with the bank. It is also argued that complainant had submitted a cheque bearing no.424008 for the period of outstanding dues against his connection. Information about dishonour of cheque was given to complainant and when he did not pay the amount in time, his numbers were barred on 8.8.2007 due to outstanding dues against his connection. Also argued that telephone numbers are being used on commercial purposes and it does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.


It is denied that any call was made from Sh. Vishal Chaudhary from telephone no.09911509523. Further denied for want of knowledge that any advocate named Ms Kalpana Joshi called complainant from mobile no.09999837396, nor opposite party have any role in allegations leveled by the complainant. Also argued that complainant never approached for disconnection of his numbers. Complainant has framed wrong, false and misconceived allegations. Complainant also not produced any record of handing over the sets to the opposite party. Therefore, complaint is not entitled for any relief and this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Sub: Disruption of GSM services on my telephone number 9818132434

Dear Sir,

I am a subscriber of telephone number 9818132434 for more than 3 years and have been paying my dues on regular basis. Yesterday in the evening around 1830 hrs, my service to the above mentioned number was disconnected without prior intimation. The device says the “SIM card registration failed and that I need to contact the service provider”. When I dial the same number from another number it says that the number is not in use, doesn’t exist.

I was expecting very important calls from overseas on my ongoing projects, which couldn’t come thru, reason Airtel disconnected my services. I faced not only mental agony but financial losses for which Airtel will bear the expenses.

May I ask the company for what reasons were my services disconnected, since I was using the number for so many years and making the payments regularly?

Recently I got my bill plan changed and my address and other details were confirmed prior to changing my bill plan. Your company executive has also come visiting my residence for payment collection on couple of occasions.

Is there some professionalism in the company or people like me will be harassed for no fault of theirs. I am sure there is some hidden agenda behind all this else, which will come out only when the legal channels are explored.


Thanks for your time.

Regards,

Sanjeev Sharma