ORDER

COMPLAINANT
Dr.Pattan Shamshu,#3A, New No.6, Reading Room Street,J.C Nagar (Muni Reddy Palya)Bangalore – 560 006.

V/s.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Bharti Airtel Limited,No.55, Divyasree Towers,Bannerghatta Road,Bangalore – 560 029.
2. Airtel,#56/4, Sharada Tower,Nandidurga Road,Benson Town,Bangalore – 560 046.

Advocate – Sri.B.J.Mahesh

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund the amount of Rs.700/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant being the Medical Practitioner thought of availing the OP connection to use Internet and GPRS facility. In that regard he got disconnected the BSNL Broadband on 12.12.2008. He took Airtel sim on 11.12.2008 but thereafter OP failed to activate the Internet and GPRS service in spite of his repeated requests and demands. OP collected the necessary charges and promised to activate within 24 hours but failed to do so. As per the demand made by the OP, complainant sent SMS “PLIVE ACTV” to 222. Thereafter also there was no response. Then he was directed to send SMS “MO” to 121 for GPRS daypack by paying necessary charges. Complainant did the same. Again there was no response and no activation. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP, complainant is unable to update his studies. OP took its own sweet time in activating and started transferring the headache from one branch to another. Complainant is made to move from pillar to post right up to 18.12.2008. Again there was no response. Complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.

2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP it has collected the necessary charges as contemplated to provide the service. Complainant failed to comply the directions issued by the OP so as to activate it. OP did activate Airtel live, MMS, NOP and easy mail. The other allegations made by the complainant are false. It is always open for the subscriber to seek new connection with respect to the service of his choice for that he is required to pay the fees. OP brought to the notice of the complainant that there is a mistake in his handset hence the activation could not be done. Complainant did get rectified the defect in his handset. So there is no willful negligence or default much less deficiency in service on the part the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No. 3 :- To what Order?

5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:
Point No.1:- In Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.
3:- As per final Order.


R E A S O N S

6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant being the Medical Practitioner availed the OP connection for the use of Internet and GPRS facility on 11.12.2008 by making payment of necessary charges. OP promised to active the Internet and GPRS service within 24 hours. Complainant did comply the instructions of OP by sending SMS “PLIVE ACTV” to 222. There was no response. Then he made the SMS “MO” to 121 for the GPRS daypack and was made to pay money. Though OP collected the service charges it failed to activate the same within 24 hours and started sending the reply SMS with a inconsistent stand.

7. Correspondence made by the complainant in that regard, replies received are produced. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As it is there is no personal ill will or grudge between the complainant and the OP so as to lodge a false complaint. Complainant availed the services for the purpose of learning various latest surgical procedures. Because of the hostile attitude of the OP and inaction in time he was forced to face both mental agony and financial loss.

8. Though OP is aware of its own defects and deficiency but wanted through blame on the complainant saying that he using Nokia N-72 model there is a defect with the said model hence they could not activate. On the other hand complainant is actually using Nokia 6500 which has got all the facility for the purpose of taking connection for the Internet and GPRS. Under such circumstances the approach of the OP does not appears to be fair and honest.

9. On going through para.8 of version OP admits that except the Mobile Office facility all other setting are activated. This admission itself amounts to deficiency in service. When OP collected the necessary charges it would have been more fair on their part to activate all the facilities that is available, but it is not done. Complainant for no fault of his is made to move from pillar to post nearly for a week. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he deserves certain relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.700/- paid by the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

III ADDL,DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

No.8,Sahakara Bhavan,Cunningham Road,Bangalore-560 052.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/2445/2008

Haridas Menon.
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The President, Bharti Airtel Ltd.

Mr. Sanjay Kapoor, President, Bharti Airtel Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Dr. Subhashini
2. H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA
3. N. SRIVATHSA KEDILAYA


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

ORDER

1. (a) This Complaint is filed on 30.11.2008. The Complaint in brief is as hereunder; Bharthi Airtel Limited is a Company carrying on the business of providing telecommunication and related services. The Complainant had availed mobile phone connection to his mobile handset from the Opposite Party-Service Provider. It bears No. 9845338393. That connection was so availed in the year 2002 itself against a security deposit of Rs.4,500/-. It was a postpaid connection. The Complainant was making the payment regularly till September 2006.


(b) In August 2006, the Complainant had to go to U.K. on assignment. In that connection, he requested the Opposite Party-Company (hereafter OP-Company), Bharthi Airtel Limited to keep his mobile phone connection in their “Number Holding Service” by paying a monthly charge of Rs.99/- commencing from September 2006. The Complainant had also kept sufficient money in credit to cover the said charges. The Complainant had also the facility of making that payment directly through his credit-card account.

(c) Though, the Complainant requested so, the OP-Company did not do so. The Complainant contacted them through their Internet Portal for which the Complainant had access and enquired the status and urged them to keep-up their commitment so that he need not worry about getting large bills. There was no reply from the OP-Company.

(d) Thereafter, in September 2006, the Executives of the OP-Company called on the Complainant through his India number and they talked to the daughter of the Complainant who was at home. Even though the Complainant had requested the OP-Company through their Internet Portal to call him over telephone to his UK number, they kept on calling the Complainant on his Indian telephone number and tried to be benefited from out of the same since the Complainant was on international roaming. They continued to debit in his account for all the roaming charges as well as the custody charges. By October 2006 without intimation suddenly the Complainant was disabled to have access to his account online. In December 2006 when the wife of the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Party to get the connection back as per the authorization of the Complainant, she was informed that the said connection was already terminated.

(e) It was surprising to note that the said connection itself was terminated. Infact there was no communication either in writing or telephonically by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. However, through E-Mails, the Complainant tried to know the reason for that termination. Ultimately in April and June 2007, the Complainant had to visit the office of the OP-Company to get that connection reactivated. No one was prepared to answer in the OP-Company as to how the above development had happened. Moreover, that Security Deposit also remained unreleased.

(f) The Complainant became frustrated on account of the above conduct of the OP-Company and he moved for refund of that Security Deposit amount with the excess amount available in the concerned account. The Complainant received a letter dt.24.7.2007 by way of acknowledgement. Though a cheque was promised, it never reached the Complainant. There was no communication also regarding the sending of that cheque. In September 2008, the Complainant finally returned from U.K. and contacted the OP-Company in that regard. Infact the Complainant might have raised not less than 10 Complaints in that connection to the OP-Company. His request for giving back his old number was also not honoured. Ultimately, the Complainant had to contact the President of the OP-Company Mr. Sanjay Kumar who is the 2nd Opposite Party herein and explained the situation.
Then only they became alert and their Executive Ms. Bhanu Narayan assured the Complainant that an investigation would be held. Ultimately, they credited the Security Deposit amount to the account of the Complainant only on 4.10.2008 and they should have done it long back in July 2007, if not, in September 2006. Mr. Ananth one of the Vice Presidents of the OP-Company and another Mr. Sajit who headed the Customer Experience Team contacted the Complainant regarding the ways and means of compensation. They agreed to credit only that Airtel phone connection charges to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and there was no cash reimbursement. In the circumstances, the above conduct of the Opposite Party since amounted to deficiency of service and since the Complainant is put to agony, sufferance and loss on account of the same, this Complaint is necessitated to direct the Opposite Parties to reimburse the cost of Rs.3,750/- and compensate him in a sum of Rs.10,000/- and also to grant such other reliefs deemed fit in the circumstances of the case in his favour. Along with the Complaint, the Complainant has made xerox copies of some documents.

2. (a) The Opposite Parties have made available their Version of the case on 22.1.2009. In brief, it is as hereunder: This Complaint is neither maintainable at law, nor on facts of the case. The grievances of the Complainant have already been met with and there is no reason for the Complainant to file this Complaint. It is at the instance of the Complainant, the OP-Company had to close the account and credit the available amount in deposit to the account of the Complainant and as on the date of the Complaint, the Complainant was no longer a Subscriber of the Opposite Party.

(b) It is true the Complainant had asked the Opposite Party to keep the mobile connection in safe custody from September 2006. Accordingly, it was kept in safe custody. Infact the bill dt.9.10.2006 was adjusted towards the amount available in the account of the Complainant. However, subsequently, the user of that phone in India had informed the Opposite Party that they are not interested to continue that connection and sought for disconnection of the phone and accordingly, that telephone connection was disconnected. This development was very much within the knowledge of the Complainant. At that time, there was no request by the Complainant for reactivation of that phone, nor any Authorized Agent of the Complainant requested in that regard. Infact the Complainant was not available in the address given to the Opposite Party and since his phone was not in activation, the Opposite Party were unable to contact him and send the deposit amount to his address. Infact the Opposite Party had sent a cheque through Courier Service to the Complainant and it came to be returned. It is only on the request of the Complainant subsequently, that amount was credited to the account of the Complainant. There was no willful negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Inspite of the appraisal of the same by the Executives of the OP-Company to the satisfaction of the Complainant, the Complainant has chosen to file this Complaint. The allegations made in the Complaint therefore, are not true to facts. The Complainant has not been put to any sort of inconvenience or hardship or harassment as alleged.
It is denied that the Opposite Party had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the account of the Complainant. It is also denied that the Executives of the Opposite Party committed any error in terminating that connection. In the circumstances, this Complaint has to be dismissed with the exemplary costs of the Opposite Party. Along with the Version, the Opposite Parties have made available xerox copies of the Account Summary and Itemized Statement including roaming statement touching the Complainant’s telephone connection.

3. In the light of the contentions of the parties, they were called upon to produce evidence by way of affidavits and documents. Accordingly, the Complainant has produced his affidavit on 11.2.2009 along with 3 documents. For the Opposite Parties, one Prashanth N., S/o Nagaraja Rao, Officer-Legal in the OP-Company as their Authorized Person has sworn to an affidavit which is made available on 19.2.2009. At the end, this Forum heard on merits.

4. The learned Counsel representing the OP-Company laid emphasize on the fact that what was required to be refunded to the Complainant has been refunded ofcourse with some delay and that the same in the circumstances cannot be made much of. However, the Complainant has tried to impress upon this Forum that he was not very much after the refund of the money and on the other hand, what has annoyed him is, the conduct of the OP-Company which amounted to harassment and that the OP-Company in their wisdom could have certainly avoided the same and therefore, the matter may not be taken as lightly as sought for by the OP-Company.

5. In the circumstances, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision and they are; (i) Whether the Complainant has become successful in establishing the alleged deficiency of service by the OP-Company? (ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief against the OP-Company in this case? (iii) What Order?

6. Our Findings to these points are as hereunder:
i) Yes
ii) Yes
iii) As shown in the operative portion of the Order here below.


7. We shall substantiate our findings on the following: R E A S O N S POINT NOS.1, 2 & 3:

(a) It is not in dispute that the Complainant is a good old customer of the Opposite Party-Service Provider in respect of a mobile phone bearing No.9845338393. As revealed in the evidence and quite admittedly too, he was a customer of the Opposite Party-Service Provider right from the 2002 and that their relationship was quite normal till September 2006 and according to the Complainant, that relationship got strained only on account of the commissions and omissions of the Opposite Party-Service Provider.

(b) According to the Complainant, in the month of August 2006, he was required to go UK on assignment and in that connection, he requested the Opposite Party-Service Provider to keep his mobile phone connection in their “Number Holding Service” by paying a monthly charge of Rs.99/- right from the month of September 2006 and that to meet the situation, he had also kept sufficient amount in credit to cover those charges with an arrangement to make direct payment through his Credit Card from his Banker namely the Standard Chartered Bank for which, the OP-Company consented. The grievance of the Complainant is that though the Opposite Party agreed, they did not act in furtherance of the same and made him to suffer physically, mentally and financially too. What we feel is, the Opposite Party-Service Provider in the circumstances ought to have kept-up their commitment as far as the Complainant’s request is concerned. According to the Complainant, without making such an arrangement, the Opposite Party began to debit in his amount for roaming charges. According to the Complainant, inspite of him providing his contact number, the Executives of the Opposite Party-Company began to contact through the above mobile phone number to the inmates of his house in Bangalore though he was away in U.K. and thereby the Opposite Party-Service Provider claimed roaming charges. It was an unnecessary exercise. Further, it is the grievance of the Complainant that to his surprise, suddenly, the Opposite Party-Service Provider disconnected that mobile phone in October 2006 without laying any intimation. Further, it is the grievance of the Complainant that when his wife in the month of December 2006 approached one of the Office-bearers of the Opposite Party-Service Provider in their Office as per his Authorization letter, they informed her that the very connection has been terminated and when that was brought to the notice of the Complainant, he tried his level best to get the needful done and inspite of the same, they did not bother to provide him reconnection to that mobile phone. It is the further contention of the Complainant that during his subsequent visits in April and June 2007 to India, he visited the Opposite Party-Service Provider many times to get that connection reactivated and the Opposite Party did not show any inclination to reconnect. Therefore, according to the Complainant, that very act of termination of connection to that mobile phone was not only an arbitrary act of the Opposite Party-Service Provider, but also an inequitous one. Having agreed and having received the necessary amount in that regard to keep that mobile phone in their “Number Holding Service”, according to the Complainant, they should not have proceeded to disconnect that very connection itself that too, behind the back of Subscriber namely, himself. Therefore according to him, the above act of the Opposite Party-Service Provider made him to get frustrated and that resulted in placing a demand to refund the amount so deposited by him while for availing that service as Security Deposit including the excess amount available in the said account which was paid during September 2006. Such a demand was made on 12.6.2007 and the Opposite Party-Service Provider agreed for the same but, did not act swiftly.

(c) As revealed in the evidence, the Complainant received a letter dt.24.7.2007 from the Opposite Party acknowledging the above request of the Complainant and informing in turn that the amount payable to the Complainant would be sent through cheque. Though it was so informed, according to the Complainant, there was no cheque at all and finally when he returned from UK in September 2008 he again contacted the Opposite Party-Service Provider in that regard and again placed his request to give him reconnection to the very same old number for which, the Opposite Party told that it is not possible. Even at that stage, according to the Complainant, they failed to refund that amount so deposited and that atlast, the Complainant had to contact the 2nd Opposite Party who is the Head of the Opposite Party-Service Provider with a Complaint who in turn, put the concerned Executive on alert and finally on 4.10.2008, the amount to be refunded came to be credited to the bank account of the Complainant. The documentary evidence made available by the Complainant by way of letters of correspondence which have remained unchallenged, would clearly go to show that the Opposite Party-Service Provider have not only failed to keep-up their promise, but also dodged to discharge of their liability to a considerable length of time and made the Complainant to undergo lot of mental trauma and harassment for no fault on his part. According to the Complainant, while availing that mobile connection, he had given a security deposit of Rs.4,500/- and again while he had sought for keeping that mobile telephone in their “Number Holding Service”, he had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- through the Credit Card on 6.9.2006 as per the receipt made available by the Opposite Party-Service Provider a copy of which, is in evidence here. In one of the correspondence letter dt.12.2.2007 sent through E-Mail which is in evidence, the Complainant has made it very clear to the Opposite Party-Service Provider that he being a staunch Airtel customer since 2002 and since he did not commit any delay in payment of any amount touching that service at any point of time, there could not have been any justification for the Opposite Party-Service Provider to so put him to inconvenience and harassment.
Nodoubt in one of their E-Mail correspondence dt. 6.10.2008, the Opposite Party-Service Provider have apologized and expressed their regret for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant. But it is significant to note that such an expression has come only when the Complainant had contacted the 2nd Opposite Party as per the E-Mail dt.22.9.2008 and not previously. Moreover, that response has come only when the Complainant had cautioned them through the E-Mail dt.3.10.2008 that he would take appropriate action for their callousness, indifference and deficiency of service.

(d) Wherefore in the above circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Party-Service Provider is not justified in any manner in inconveniencing and harassing the Complainant as stated supra. It may be that they might have refunded the amount payable to the Complainant. Still the fact remains that even that refund was so made after undue delay that too only after the intervention of the higher-ups in the Opposite Party-Company. Instead of expressing sorry at the latest stage, the Opposite Party-Service Provider could have done what was required to be done by them at the appropriate time without precipitating the issue. Wherefore, the above conduct of the Opposite Party-Service Provider would certainly amount to deficiency of service within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.


(e) Nodoubt, the Complainant has claimed compensation in a sum of Rs.10,000/- and another sum of Rs.3,000/- by way of cost of the litigation. However having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, what we feel is, the compensation so claimed by the Complainant is somewhat on the higher side and that the ends of justice would meet if the same is fixed at Rs.3,000/-. As far as the cost is concerned, this is a fit case wherein the Complainant need be provided with cost of this litigation. However what we feel is, it can be modestly estimated and fixed at Rs.2,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:


ORDER Since the Complainant has become successful in establishing the alleged deficiency of service by the Opposite Party-Company and since the Complainant has been put to agony, sufferance and loss on account of the same, the Opposite Parties are hereby directed to compensate the Complainant in a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) and pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant by way of cost of this litigation within 30 days from this date.

If the payment of compensation is not made by that time, the said amount shall carry interest at 12% p.a. right from the date of the Complaint, till payment. In the circumstances, it is for the 2nd Opposite Party to pull up his subordinates who are responsible for the Complainant to approach this Forum and take appropriate action against them in the best interests of their Customers at large and their own interest.

C.C.No.145/2008

Between:
P.Sambhuprasad, Advocate,
S/o. P.V.V.Satyanarayana, Hindu,
33 years, D.No.85-3-5/1,
Opp. Old Bajaj Showroom Street,
V.L.Puram, Rajahmundry, E.G.District. ... Complainant.

A N D

1. The General Manager,
Airtel Bharati Airtel Ltd,
Circle Office: Slendid Towers,
Opp. Begumpet Police Station,
HUDA Road, Begumpeta,
Hyderabad – 500 016.

2. The Manager, Airtel Relationship Center,
D.NO.75-6-38, B.C.V.Complex,
Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry – 533 103.

3. The Proprietor,
Mastam Fancy & Book Center,
D.No.7/620-2, RTC Bus Stand Road,
Near Apsara Talkies, Kadapa – 516 002.

4. The Managing Director,
Bharati Airtel Ltd, Reg.Office:H-5/12,
Qulets Ambience Mehravli Road,
New Delhi – 110 030. ...Opposite parties.
This case is coming on 17.04.2009 for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, version of the opposite parties and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V.S.R.Kalyan, advocate for the complainant and of Sri D.V.K.Rao, advocate for the 1st opposite party and opposite parties 2 to 4 were sent exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.

O R D E R

(By Sri A.Madhusudana Rao, Member)

The complainant filed this complaint under section.12 of C.P.Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to issue duplicate SIM card of cell No.9849180588 and restore the same number, direct the opposite parties to pay jointly and severally Rs.83,222/- towards damages and mental agony with 24% interest p.a from the date of filing complaint till realization, to award costs of the complaint and other reliefs.


2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the complainant purchased Airtel Lifetime prepaid on 24.12.2005 from the 1st opposite party through the 3rd opposite party retailer for Rs.999/- part from Rs.200/- towards SIM card and Rs.100/- towards activation charges and allotted call No.9849180588. The validity of lifetime card is up to closer or windup/merged/amalgamation said opposite party company. The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties 1 and 2 collected an amount of Rs.2/- per call pertaining to lifetime prepaid customers, but collected RS>0.30Ps to R.0.50Ps per call from other package customers. The complainant’s cell was stolen on 15.06.2008 by an unknown person and the same was informed to the 2nd opposite party in person and when the complainant gave written complaint, the opposite parties refused to take the same. Further the complainant requested to stop the incoming calls and the out going calls from the cell phone mentioned supra, the 2nd opposite party vehemently refused to do so. Even the complainant’s request for duplicate SIM card of 98491 80588 and restored the said connection. The opposite parties did not issue the same and informed the complainant that the said number was allotted to some other person. The complainant was a practicing advocate and circulated this cell number to his clients, friends and relatives etc. Further the complainant’s enquires revealed that the said number was not allotted to anyone so far. The complainant issued legal notice on 22.10.2008 and the opposite parties No.2 and 3 received the same, but did not issue any reply. The complainant also filed an I.A.289/2008 praying this Honourable Forum to direct the opposite parties for restoration of the earlier number i.e 9849180588 and to issue duplicate sim card. Hence, this complaint.



3. The 1st opposite party filed its version. The 3rd opposite party also sent his version through post. The 1st opposite party denied the averments and allegations against this opposite party and not maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, the complaint is based and devoid of merits and it liable to be dismissed.

It is humbly submitted that it is true that the complainant took a prepaid connection from the 3rd opposite party the retail seller of 1st opposite party and it is also true that the complainant is a life time validity customer, but it is denied that the life time validity prepaid card is valid up to close or windup/merged/amalgamation/closed of the company. The life time validity means as long as the opposite party companies license for extension of mobile services is valid. It is further submitted that the opposite party is not aware whether the complainant had obtained the prepaid connection by seeing advertisement in Enadu or not. It is further submitted that it is true that the call charges were Rs.2/- per call during the years 2005 and 2006 and the same were reduced to Rs.1/- during October 2006 for life time customers and so it is not true that the complainant were charged Rs.2/- per call through out. However, it is submitted that during the period of alleged usage by the complainant there were several tariff top-up options available by which a customer can avail low call tariff as per their needs and the complainant did not prefer to avail the same, therefore the complainant cannot complain against the opposite party with regard to different tariffs to other customers.


It is submitted that, this opposite party is not aware whether the complainant’s mobile was stolen on 15.06.2008 and the same was informed to 2nd opposite party or not and on verification with the 2nd opposite party it is found that the complainant did not approach them at all during June, 2008. The complainant is put to strict proof of his complaint to the 2nd opposite party. It is further submitted that, the 2nd opposite party is not authorized to suspend the services of any number; in case of mobile loss the complainant’s have to request for SIM replacement and this can be done immediately to the authentic users on whose name the mobile was allotted but not to 3rd parties. It is conformed that there is not complaint received against mobile No.98491 80588 at any point of time. It is further submitted by this opposite party that on verification of regards pertaining to complainant’s mobile No.98491 80588. It is revealed that the complainant is not using the said mobile from January 2008. As per the life time validity customers, terms and conditions which are mutually agreed by the complainant at the time of obtaining the mobile once a number is not in usage continuously for 180 days i.e there is not incoming or outgoing call logged the number can be suspended. Here in the present case the complainant did not use the mobile for about 7 months and the said number was recycled during August 2008 and subsequently opted by a new customer at that time.


As per the terms and conditions of the lifetime validity “customer will remaining active on super life time validity tariff plan provided he does a minimum usage of Rs.200/- in 180 running days”. Customers not fulfilling this criterion will lose their time validity benefit and would be permanently deactivated. Therefore the complainant’s mobile was recycled for not using for months together and the same was informed to the complainant on his oral enquiry, further it is not true to say that the complainant enjoyed uninterrupted services of this opposite party till 08.02.2008. Further it is humbly submitted that the complainant as stated above did not approach any of the opposite parties for SIM replacement as alleged in the complaint. Therefore it is once again humbly submitted that the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency of service of the part of the complainant. In fact the complainant himself did not abide by the terms and conditions by not utilizing his mobile for months together and suddenly filed this present complaint for deriving undue advantage for illegal gains. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.


The 3rd opposite party in his version stated that the distributors and other opposite parties can confirm the sale of SIM card to the complainant. The 3rd opposite party further submitted that he does not know whether the complainant has lost his mobile along with alleged SIM card and non allocation of same mobile number to the complainant by the other opposite parties. Further stated that he was no way concern to the present dispute and added only as a formal party and the complainant never made any allegations against this 3rd opposite party in his complaint. As such, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this 3rd opposite party. Hence, the Hon’ble Forum may be dismiss the complaint against this 3rd opposite party.


4. Heard both the parties.


5. Points to be considered in this case are that;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amounts and other
reliefs asked for? If so, to what extent?


6. Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were reported on behalf of the opposite parties.


7. Admitted facts in this case are that the complainant obtained a prepaid connection from the 3rd opposite party i.e the retailer of the 1st opposite party and he is a life time validity customer. The 2nd opposite party is the local franchise of the 1st opposite party.


8.
POINT NO.1:
The case of the complainant is that he purchased Airtel life time prepaid on 24.12.2005 form the 3rd opposite party on payment of Rs.999/- vide Ex.A.1 bill towards life time prepaid charge apart from Sim card charge of Rs.200/- and activation charge of Rs.100/- on seeing an advertisement in Enadu, Kadapa main edition vide Ex.A.2. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties collected Rs.2/- per call pertaining to the Life time prepaid customers and 00-30 Ps to 00-50 Ps from all other package customers. The complainant further submitted that unfortunately the cell was stolen by unknown person on 15.6.2008 and informed the same to the 2nd opposite party in person and the 2nd opposite party refused to take the letter of intimation (Ex.A.3) and moreover the complainant requested to stop all incoming and outgoing calls to his cell number and the 2nd opposite party refused to stop as the said connection was a life time prepaid one. Then the complainant informed the 1st and 2nd opposite party to issued duplicate sim card to him and restore the said connection, but the opposite party not issued the same on one pretext or the other and further informed that the said cell number was allotted to another customer without any prior intimation to the complainant. On that the complainant got issued Ex.A.4 legal notice Dt.22.10.2008 and Ex.A.5 is the acknowledgments received from the opposite parties and Ex.A.6 is the reply by the 1st opposite party.
Whereas, the 1st opposite party contended that the life time validity is only up to their license is valid. Further, they were not aware that the prepaid connection obtained by the complainant on seeing add on Enadu or not. The 1st opposite party further contended that the call charges of the Life time prepaid customer were Rs.2/- per call during 2005-2006 and the said call charges was reduced to Rs.1/- during October, 2006. There were several tariff packages available for the customers and the customers can avail low call tariff as per their needs, but the complainant did not prefer to avail the same. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the 2nd opposite party with a complaint on 15.6.2008. The 2nd opposite party is not in possession to suspend the services of any number and in case of loss of mobile set, the complainant has to request for sim replacement which was not done by the complainant and further it is revealed that the complainant not using the said phone from January, 2008 onwards.


As per the lifetime validity customers terms & conditions, which are mutually agreed by the complainant at the time of obtaining the mobile connection; once a number is not in use continuously for 180 days i.e there is no incoming or out going call logged; the number can be suspended.

As the complainant failed to use his mobile for a period of 7 months his number was recycled during August, 2008 and allotted to a new customer who opted for it and this fact was informed to the complainant on his verbal enquiry and advised him to apply for new mobile in case he wants to avail services of this opposite party. As per the terms and conditions a customer will remain active on super lifetime validity tariff plan provided he used Rs.200/- in 180 running days and who failed to do his would be permanently deactivated. It is submitted that the 1st and 4th opposite parties not received any complaint or legal notices from the complainant.

On perusal of the record and upon admission by the 1st opposite party, we are in the considered opinion that the complainant is a life validity customer of the opposite parties Airtel lifetime prepaid connection. It is further observed that the opposite party contended that the complainant is not using the said mobile from January, 2008. But, there is no evidence to this effect. It is further noted that the complainant wrote Ex.A.3 letter Dt.15.6.2008 to the 2nd opposite party herein who is none other than franchise of the 1st opposite party and who refused to take the same from the complainant. But, the 1st opposite party contended that the complainant neither approached the franchise, nor informed the 1st opposite party. For this also the opposite party failed to file any evidence.
It is further observed that the 1st opposite party contended as per the terms and conditions mutually agreed at the time of obtaining the mobile connection once a number is not in use continuously for 180 days, the number can be suspended. But, this 1st opposite party failed to file any such terms and conditions mutually agreed by the complainant and the opposite party at the time of obtaining the mobile connection. Further, it is also observed that the contention of the 1st opposite party that as per Super Lifetime validity tariff plan the customers not in usage of Rs.200/- in 6 months time will lose life time validity benefit and would be permanently, but for this contention also there is no cogent evidence to support its contention.


With the discussion held supra; we are in the considered opinion that the 1st opposite party’s contention that there is no deficiency of service on their part as they done every thing as per the terms and conditions mutually agreed at the time of sale of mobile connection, but the opposite party failed to prove their contention by placing any cogent evidence with regard to their contention. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum has no other go but to accept the plea of the complainant as the opposite parties failed to prove contra. The claim against the 3rd opposite party retailer is not sustainable as he is only a retailer working under the guidance and supervision of the 1st opposite party.


9.
POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1,2 and 4 to issue duplicate sim card and to restore the complainant’s earlier number i.e 9849180588 and they are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards damages and Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.85/2008.

Friday, the 17th day of April, 2009.

Between:
1. M/s Sri Sarvaraya Agencies,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Sri Garapati Rajasekhar Sarvarayudu,
Hindu, 54 yrs, R/o. D.No.31/10, NH-5,
Hukumpeta, Rajahmundry. ...Complainant.

A N D

1. The Branch Manager, Bharathi Airtel Limited,
Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry.

2. Bharathi Airtel Limited, 4th Floor, Finance Dept.,
Splended Towers, Opp. Begumpet Police Station,
HUDA Road, Begumpeta, Hyderabad. … Opposite parties.


This case is coming 20.03.2009 for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, version of the opposite parties and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Hanumantha Rao, advocate for the complainant and Sri D.V.Krishna Rao, advocate for the 2nd Opposite party the 1st opposite party remained absent and set exparte having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.


ORDER


(PER SRI A. MADHUSUDANA RAO, MEMBER)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the consumer Protections Act to direct the opposite parties to deduct the amount made for the wrong calls mentioned in the bill dt.10.02.2008, to award damages of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and to award costs and other reliefs.


2.The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the
complainant obtained post paid AIRTEL connection bearing No.9866656590 from the 1st opposite party and have been paying the monthly bills regularly with out default. As such to the surprise and shock of the complainant, the complainant received a bill for Rs.8,315.99 for the period from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008. During the time of obtaining the connection the complainant gave a letter to the 1st opposite party for credit limit upto Rs.600/- only, but the 1st opposite party fixed the credit limit amount at Rs.1,500/- for month and so far no bills of the complainant exceed more than Rs.1,200/- per month at any point of time. After receipt of the said disputed bill the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and obtained detailed billing and on perusal of the same the complainant found that some of the entries and phone numbers are not related to the complainant’s firm and more over the complainant submitted the numbers they use regularly for the purpose of business on 26.03.2008.
The 1st opposite party insisted the complainant to pay the stringer calls amount wroth of more than Rs.6,000/- though the complainant is ready to pay the actual calls used by them. It is further submitted that as the credit limit was only Rs.1,500/- per month, the 1st opposite party has to issue reminders while crossing the credit limit by the complainant. The opposite parties agents regularly visited and threatening the complainant to pay the entire bill. The complainant got issued legal notice dt.10.01.2008 and received reply from the opposite parties with false averments. The attitude of the opposite parties clearly shows the deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.


3. The 2nd opposite party filed their version denying all the main and material allegations made in the complaint and the complaint is baseless and devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that it is true that the complainant is a customer to the mobile services of the opposite parties and was availing services regularly but denied that the complainant has been paying the monthly bill payment without default. It is further submitted that, this opposite parties had served a bill dt.10.01.2008 for the services availed from 08.12.2007 to 02.01.2008 for Rs.1,351.40 Ps and the said bill bears a due date for payment on or before 28.01.2008. The complainant was called to pay due amount on 08.02.2008 and requested to clear his bill amount. The last payment made by complainant was Rs.456/- on 28.12.2008, further, the complainant did not made any payment and continued to avail the services of this opposite parties. Meanwhile another bill got rolled out dt 10.02.2008 for the services availed from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008 for Rs.9,667.39 ps which includes previous months balance of Rs.1,351.40 ps and the due date is 28.02.2008. The complainant did not prefer to pay this bill but started disputing the bill for excess charges. The credit limit is always kept low while issuing connection but gets increased based on customers usage pattern and the credit limit of the complainant got increased to Rs.1,500/- like other customers.


It is further submitted that the bill dt. 10.02.2008 alleged to have contained phone Nos. no way connected and strange calls is the bill for the period from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008 and in fact during this period the complainant had extensively utilized SMS downloads and other value added services worth Rs.5,144/- during the period from 08.01.2008 to 26.01.2008 accordingly the complainant was charged for the same. The details of the downloads can be seen from page no.11 to 14 under Ex B3. It is further submitted that this opposite parties sent SMS reminder dt 17.02.2008 about the outstanding bill amount. In the reply notice also the details of the bill dt 10.02.2008 mentioned about the service details availed by the complainant. Further, it is submitted that this opposite parties at no point of time threatened the complainant for non payment of disputed bill. It is further submitted that this opposite party sent a pre suspension SMS to the complainant on 21.02.2008 and the services were suspended as the last resort only for non payment of outstanding bills. It is therefore prayed, by this opposite parties that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.


4. Heard both the parties. Complainant filed written arguments.


5. Points to be considered in this case are that;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amounts and other
reliefs asked for? If so, to what extent?


6. Exs.A.1 to A.5 are marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex B1 to B3 were marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party.


7. Admitted facts in this case are that the complainant is a Airtel Postpaid Customer vide mobile No.9866656590 of the opposite parties and received Ex A1 monthly bill for Rs.9,667.39 ps for the period from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008 including previous balance of Rs.1,351.40 ps. On that the complainant got issued Ex A3 legal notice dt 10.04.2008 to the opposite parties and received Ex A4 reply dt 28.04.2008 by the 1st opposite party and Ex A5 reply from 2nd opposite party.


8. POINT NO.1: The case of the complainant is that he received bill dt 10.02.2008 from the 1st opposite party demanding for the payment of Rs.8,315.99 ps though he intimated the 1st opposite party to restrict his credit limit for Rs.600/- through a letter, the 1st opposite party fixed the credit at Rs.1,500/- p.m. Further, the complainant submitted that his bills were never exceed more than Rs.1,200/- p.m at any point of time. Further, the complainant alleged that he found some stringer calls amount to Rs.6,000/- in his bill and when the complainant is ready to pay for the actual calls made by him the opposite party refused to take the same.


Whereas, the 2nd opposite party contended that the complainant was a defaulter and he made his last payment of Rs.456/- on 28.12.2007 and the complainant has to pay Rs.1,351.40 ps for the services availed from 08.12.2007 to 02.01.2008. It is further contended by the 2nd opposite party that the bill dt 10.02.2008 is for the services availed from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008 for Rs.9,667.39 ps including previous balance of Rs.1,351.40 ps. It is here worth mentioning that the credit limit of the complainant was fixed at Rs.1,500/- p.m as per his usage like other customers. Further, it is submitted that during the bill period from 08.01.2008 to 07.02.2008 the complainant extensively utilized the SMS downloads and the value added services during the period from 08.01.2006 to 26.01.2008. This opposite party never threatened the complainant for payment of due amount but SMS reminders were issued and finally issued a pre barring SMS on 17.02.2008 and finally suspended the services on 21.02.2008 for non payment of due amount.


On perusal of the record available it is observed that A1,A2=B1,B2 are one and the same which clearly stated about the time, date and duration of calls from the complainant’s mobile bearing No.9866656590 to various mobiles and value added service numbers. Further it is found that, as per Ex B3 detailed computer generated statement the complainant herein availed downloads and value added services like Java Games, Wallpapers, MP3 etc. The complainant’s main allegation that he found some stranger numbers in the detailed billing statement issued by the opposite parties under Ex A1 and A2 but the complainant failed to identify and mention the said stranger numbers in his complaint, further the complainant failed to prove that he did not availed the downloads and value added services through his mobile from the opposite parties. It is further observed that the complainant failed to prove that he paid the earlier balance amount of Rs.1,351.40 ps and he is not in due to the opposite parties with regard to the said bill. Further, we have also observed that the opposite parties fixed the complainant’s credit limit at Rs.1,500/- p.m as per the usage of mobile phone of the complainant.



With the discussion held in the above paras, we are in the considered opinion that the complainant failed to prove his case with any cogent evidence and so, we cannot attribute any deficiency in service to the opposite parties under the facts and circumstances of the case we have no other option but to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant as he is not entitled for any reliefs asked for in his complaint.


9.POINT NO.2: In the result, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed and in the circumstances of the case we direct each party to bear their own costs.

COMPLAINANT


BY-SRI. C.A.PACHHAPUR,
SRI. H. MANJUNATH,
ADVOCATES, BELLLARY.

//VS//

SRI. D. YERRISWAMY,
S/O DAKSHINA MURTHY,
C/O O. SIDDANAGOUDA,
ESHWARA KRUPA, M. K. NAGAR,
BELLARY.
RESPONDENTS



BY-SRI. B.J. MAHESH,
ADVOCATE, B’LORE.
SRI. H. M. ANKALAIAH,
SRI. M. VEERESH,
ADVOCATES, BELLARY.
FOR R-2 & 3.


1. M/S ESHWARA MEDICALS &
GENERAL STORES INDIRA NAGAR,
MAIN ROAD, BELLARY.


2. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., CIRCLE OFFICE
NO.55, DIVYASREE TOWERS,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE – 560 029.

3. BHARTI AIRTEL LTD., REGD. OFFICE,
H-5/12, QUTUB AMBIENCE,
MEHRAULI, NEW DELHI- 110 030.

4. ABISHEKH MARKETING,
RADIO CIRCLE, RADIO PARK,
BELLARY.

//JUDGMENT//

This is the complaint filed by Complainant D.Yerriswamy against Respondent No. 1 to 4 under Sec-12 of C.P. Act for to issue direction to the Respondents to activate SIM bearing No.9880100543 with upto date balance and damage, to direct them to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards loss sustained by him, for to award Rs.500/- towards visiting charges, to award an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards amount spent by him for registered post charges and cost of the litigation and to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.

2. The brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that;

He purchased Airtel SIM Card on 08/11/2007 from the Respondent No.1 bearing SIM No.9880100543 by paying an amount of Rs.100/- and he paid Rs.999/- for conversion of life time validity and recharged his currency by paying an amount of Rs.500/-. The SIM was activated without any complaint till May-2008. Thereafter, it suddenly stopped in functioning and deactivated. He approached the Respondent No.1 and stated the nature of complaint of the SIM. He activated the SIM, but after three days his Mobile stopped functioning as SIM Registration Failed. Thereafter, he approached the Respondent No.1 and requested to activate the SIM, but he not took proper action. Thereafter, he intimated the same to the Respondent No.4. He also not attended the defects. Thereafter, he informed the same to all the Respondents, but all of them not took any action in activation of the SIM. Hence, this complaint was filed by him for the reliefs as mentioned in it.


3. The Respondent No.1 and 4 are placed exparte. The Respondent No.2 and 3 appeared and filed their Written Version and brief facts of W.V. of them are that;

The Complainant is not a subscriber of Mobile Telephone No.9880100543. There is no contract of any kind in between him with Respondents. The said mobile is standing in the name of one Sri.Mareppa of Bellary. He became a subscriber with Respondent No.2 and 3 on 08/11/2007 and enrolled his name as a subscriber in Airtel Prepaid Customer Enrollment. SIM card was purchased in the name of said Mareppa, as such the present Complainant is not a customer of Respondent No.2 and 3. All other allegations made against them are specifically denied. There was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.


4. In view of the pleadings of parties, now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that;

1.
Whether the Complainant proves that he purchased Airtel SIM bearing No.9880100543 on 08/11/2007 by paying an amount of Rs.100/- and it was converted into life time validity period by paying Rs.999/- and he recharged the currency of Rs.500/- and it was activated on the same day, the said SIM was worked till May-2008, thereafter, it stopped, it was activated by the Respondent No.1, but it worked only for three days and stopped, the said fact was brought to the notice of Respondent No.1 and to the notices of other Respondents, but Respondents shown their negligence in correcting the defects inspite of oral and written requests and thereby all the Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services towards him?

2.
Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed in his complaint?

3.
To what relief the Complainant is entitled for?

//POINTS//

5. Our findings on the above points are as under.

Point No.1:
In Negative.


Point No.2:
In Negative.

Point No.3:
In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, we pass the final order for the following;

//REASONS//

Point Nos.1 & 2: -


6. To prove the facts involved in these two Points, affidavit evidence of Complainant was filed, he was noted as P.W.1. No Written Arguments filed. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit evidence of Officer-Legal of Respondent No.2 was filed, documents Ex.R1. to Ex.R.6 are marked. Written Arguments filed.

7. The only point for consideration is as to whether Complainant is the customer of Respondents and he purchased Airtel SIM from Respondent No.1 as pleaded in Para No.2 of his complaint as well as in his affidavit evidence on the background of denial by the Respondent No.2 and 3 that Complainant is not a customer and one Mareppa is the customer.


8. In support of this fact, the Complainant relied on Ex.P.1 SIM card, Ex.P.2 User’s Manual and Ex.P.3 list with regard to sale of SIM said to have maintained by Respondent No.4.

9. The Respondent No.2 and 3 filed Ex.R.1 Airtel Prepaid Customer’s Enrollment Form which stands in the name of one Mareppa. Mobile Number of him is shown as 9880100543 for which the present Complainant is claiming his ownership over it as he purchased it from the Respondent No.1. In Ex.R.1 SIM number is shown as 89914500040100775565 dated: 08/11/2007 of the said Mobile. Ex.R.2 is the Call Detail Records of said Mobile No.9880100543 with said SIM from 01/05/2008 to 31/05/2008, Ex.R.3 is Call Detail Records of the said SIM from 01/06/2008 to 30/06/2008, Ex.R.4 is Call Detail Records of the said SIM from 01/01/2009 to 31/01/2009, Ex.R.5 is another Call Details Records of the said SIM from 01/02/2009 to 28/02/2009 and Ex.R.6 is another Call Detail Records of the said SIM from 01/03/2009 to 11/03/2009.

10. In support of the claim of Complainant, Ex.P.1 is SIM Card from which we can see its number. We cannot say from it as Complainant is the purchaser of the said SIM from any one of these Respondents. Ex.P.2 User’s Guide Manual of Post Activation of Airtel Prepaid SIM. From it we cannot say that Complainant is the owner of the said Mobile No. 9880100543 and the said SIM was purchased from the Respondents. Ex.P.3 is a list said to be maintained by Respondent No.4 with regard to sale of said SIM, but this document is not an authenticated document issued by Respondent No.4.

11. In view of the facts, Ex.R.1 Customer’s Enrollment Form shows that Complainant is not the owner of the said Mobile and SIM, but one Mareppa enrolled as he is the owner of said Mobile and SIM from 08/11/2007. Apart from this Ex.R.1, other documents which are Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.6 shows the use of the said SIM by Mareppa who was enrolled as a customer vide Ex.R.1. Taking into consideration of documents Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.6 coupled with Ex.R.1, it is a fact that, as on the date of this complaint, the Complainant is not a customer of any one of these Respondents either in respect of purchase of Mobile phone or the said SIM. Documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3 are not sufficient to hold that the present Complainant is the purchaser and customer of said Mobile and SIM from the Respondents under the meaning and definition of Sec-2(1)(g) of C. P. Act.

12. Under the said circumstances, we are of the view that, the Complainant miserably failed to prove the fact that he is the customer of any one of these Respondents. In view of the fact that there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of any one of these Respondents. Accordingly, we answered Point No.1 in Negative.

13. In view of findings on Point No.1, the present Complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs as prayed in his complaint. Accordingly, we answered Point No.2.



Point No.3: -

14. In view of findings on Point Nos.1 & 2, we pass the following;

//ORDER//

The complaint filed by the Complainant is dismissed, leaving the parties at their own costs.

COMPLAINT NO. 2764 OF 2008

Sri. R. Balaji,
S/o. Sri. T. Raghunathan,
Aged About 39 years,
C/o. S.F.25A, 2nd Floor,
H.H.S/HMS Complex,
Cubbonpet Main Road,
Near Halasuru Gate Police Station,
BANGALORE-02.

COMPLAINT NO. 2765 OF 2008

Sri. Lakshminarayan. G,
S/o. Sri. Govindaiah,
Aged About 25 years,
No.408, 16th Cross, Hegganahalli
Main Road, Sunkadakatte,
BANGALORE-560 091.

COMPLAINT NO. 2766 OF 2008

Sri. Ali Haskar,
S/o. Kasim,
Aged About 30 years,
No.52, Narayan Nilaya,
Opp. Hopcoms, Ashwath nagar,
Sanjay nagar Main Road,
BANGALORE-560 094.
COMPLAINT NO. 2767 OF 2008

Sri. Dilip Kumar A.K.,
S/o. Sri. A.K. Krishna,
Aged About 25 years,
C/o. S.F. 25A, 2nd Floor,
H.H.S/HMS Complex,
Cubbonpet Main Road,
Near Halasuru Gate Police Station,
BANGALORE. …. Complainants.

-V/s-

The Bharathi Air Tel Ltd.,
No.55, Divya Shree Towers,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
BANGALORE-560 029.
Represented by its M.D. …. Opposite Party.

COMMON ORDER

All these complaints claiming similar relief on common set of facts are directed against the same opposite party. Therefore we propose to dispose-of all these complaints by common order.

The complainants in all these cases claim that, they are practicing Advocates in Bangalore and their area of profession is mainly confined to city central area like the Honorable High Court Of Karnataka, City Civil Court and CMM Court Complex. They claim that they have availed the services of the opposite party for mobile connection held by each of them and contend that the opposite party has been collecting various charges under various categories including the maintenance charges for the service provided. Their grievance is that the main place of their work and usage of the mobile services of the opposite party is near to Ambedkar Veedhi and central city area limits and in those areas since past three months the services of the opposite party has been very poor.

Though the phone instrument shows full signal they are not in a position to contact other persons nor other persons in a position to contact them and they believe that the reason for the same is that the opposite party has been blindly and irresponsibly issuing the SIM cards to the public without increasing the tower capacity or the number of towers and has thus not fulfilled the obligation to the consumers and deprived the complainants, the benefits of the services and due to lack of connectivity their clients were unable to contact them at the time of need and thereby they are professionally affected. In Complaint No.2763/2008 it is also alleged that, the complainant in the said case is also a Professor and therefore he is required to be contacted by his students also in case of any doubts or conclusion and due to lack of proper service the students are also deprived-of his assistance. It is further alleged that though they have been lodging complaint with the opposite party for improvement of the services the same has fallen to the deaf ear of the opposite party which has not bothered to rectify the fault, but calling upon them to provide additional SIM cards. Hence these complaints for a direction to the opposite party to provide good and efficient service to them at the City Central Area, Ambedkar Veedhi area, Honorable High Court Of Karnataka, City Civil Court and CMM Court area and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each complainant towards loss of service benefits, mental harassment, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the complaint and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.



2. In the version the common contention of the opposite party is as under:-


It is not personally aware of the avocation of the complainants, nor the areas in which the profession of the complainants is confined. It is collecting charges under various categories, but not collecting any amount towards maintenance charges. The allegation that since past three months the service of the opposite party has been very poor and that the opposite party has been issuing the SIM cards to the public without increasing the tower capacity or number of towers is denied. The allegation that the complainants have lodged the complaint for improvement of services is denied. The allegations in the complaints are far from truth.


There is adequate network in and around the areas specified by the complainants. Thousands of subscribers are using the services of the opposite party in and around the areas like Honorable High Court Of Karnataka, City Civil Court and CMM Court Complex, Vidhana Soudha and other places and no network problem is found as alleged by the complainants. When the complainants state that their instruments show full signal, but they are unable to receive the call, gives rise to a doubt that there might be some defect in the mobile instrument used by the complainants. The signal regarding the network will be displayed in the instrument only in case of adequate network in the locality. The contention about the difficulty in making calls in spite of such display in the instrument about the availability of the network is unscientific and technically not permissible. The adequacy of network may be very low in certain areas like basements, lifts, upper floors of the high raised building, in which radio active movements are low, and congested places where density of walls is more. The lack of network in such circumstances is inevitable and there is no willful negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It has set up adequate towers to cater to the required connections to cope up with necessity of connections. The complainants have come up with false and unscientific allegations with an intention to defame the opposite party and to cause loss reputation. On these grounds opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaints.

3. In support of the respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits. The opposite party had produced the call details pertaining to the mobile of each complainant for certain period. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides.

4. The points for consideration are:-
(1)Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(2)Whether the complainants entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5. Our findings on the above points are in the Negative for the following:-

REASONS

POINT Nos. 1 & 2:-

6. The fact that the complainants have availed mobile services of the opposite party is not disputed. The grievance of the complainants is that, in the City Central Area such as the Honorable High Court of Karnataka, City Civil Court, CMM Court Complex and Ambedkar Veedhi they are not getting proper service from the opposite party for the past three months. According to them though in those areas the phone instrument shows full signal they are not in a position to contact other persons, nor others could contact them and they believe that this problem is on account of the opposite party issuing SIM cards to public without increasing the tower capacity or the number of towers. In the version the opposite party has denied the above allegations of the complainants. It is further contended that, when the mobile instrument of the complainants display the availability of network and in spite of it if the complainants are unable to make or receive the calls there might be some defect in the instrument itself. It is further contended by the opposite party that, there is adequate network in and around the areas specified by the complainants. According to the opposite party the adequacy of the network may be low in the areas like basements, lifts, upper floors of the high raised buildings, the areas in which the radio active moments is more and the lack of network in such circumstances is inevitable.

All the complainants have alleged that, they are unable to get the connectivity of the mobile connections in the central area such as, the Honorable High Court of Karnataka, City Civil Court, and CMM Court Complex. These are the general allegations made by the complainants. They have not stated the exact area or place in which they are unable to get the connectivity. If the complainants were unable to get the connectivity in the areas like basements, lifts, upper floors of the high raised buildings they cannot blame the opposite party for such problems, because it is contended by the opposite party that in such areas the lack of network is inevitable. From the call details produced by the opposite party it is seen that the complainants have been able to use the mobile services even in the areas such as City Civil Court, Hudson Circle, Banappa Park, Cubbonpet and other places in the central area of the city. The correctness of the contents of the call details produced by the opposite party in respect of the mobile of each complainant is not disputed. If that is so, it goes to indicate that even in the areas specified by the complainants the complainants have been able to avail the mobile services. Therefore without specific contention as to the area or place in which the complainants were unable to get the connectivity of the mobiles, on the basis of the general allegations, the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party cannot be made out. Though the complainants have stated that they had complained to the opposite party regarding the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in providing service in the areas specified by them no documents in support of that contention are produced. The said allegations of the complainants are denied by the opposite party. In these circumstances, we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore hold that, the complainants are not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

ORDER

7. All the complaints are Dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

8. The Original of this Order shall be kept in Complaint No.2763/2008 and a true copy of the Order shall be kept in each of the other cases.

The complainant is a subscriber of Airtel (Bharati Tele Ventures). The complainant’s cell No. is 9895857486. The complainant is getting nuisance messages from another subscriber of Airtel. The messages are nuisance and irritating. The complainant informed the opposite party office. Opposite party agreed to warn and disconnect the connection of the troublemaker. But opposite party did not make any effort. The complainant had also lodged a complaint in the site of the airtel internet. Opposite party sent a reply over internet that they have disconnected the phone but the messages continue. Hence the complainant had filed this petition seeking relief.



Opposite party filed a version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party denies the fact that the complainant had lodged any complaint before the opposite party. The complainant has not mentioned the number from which he received the alleged obscene messages. Opposite party is ready to do all the needful. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Complainant is not entitled for the relief. Petition may be dismissed with cost to opposite party.



The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief sought in the petition?



The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on opposite party’s side.



The complainant’s case is that he had taken a phone connection of the opposite party he was getting obscene messages to his cell No.9895857486. The complainant had lodged a complaint before the Police Station and also before the opposite party. The opposite party said that they could not divulge the subscriber’s name who is sending obscene messages to complainant’s cell number but they will definitely disconnect the connection of the trouble maker. The opposite party did not make any effort in this matter.

The complainant had lodged a complaint in the opposite party’s site in internet also. Ext.A3 clearly shows that the complainant had informed the opposite party regarding the obscene messages being send to complainant’s phone number. Ext.A3 also mentions the number from which the messages are sent. He has mentioned number 9895134742. Ext.A4 shows that complainant had intimated the opposite party over E.mail. Ext.A5 is the reply of opposite party-2 to the complainant informing that they have barred the number 9895134742 at the request of the complainant. Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant was able to use the phone. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party. The complainant states that even though he could make calls and receive calls and messages there was some implied rights which he could enjoy. In the deposition of PW1 Page-2 complainant states that “



Implied rights.” Opposite party has taken a contention that they had disconnected the phone connection of the troublemaking caller after they received the complaint. From the evidence and the documents the forum has arrived at an opinion that the complainant had to suffer because of the nuisance messages. The complainant had gone through mental agony also. The stand of opposite party that they have given services to the complainant and likewise many other customers, there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. But in this case another caller had misused the service of opposite party.

When the complainant informed about this fact opposite party did not take immediate action. In our opinion the delay in taking the complainant’s case and acting upon is negligent. We are of the opinion that there was slight negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite party. As a result the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party. Opposite party reported in open court that they have already complied the request of the complainant by disconnecting the cell phone connection of the troublemaker who send obscene messages. Hence we are restricting the compensation to Rs.1000/-.



In the result the petition is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1000/- ( Rupees One thousand only) for the mental agony the complainant had to suffer and also a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Saaraah Associates,

#3, 1st Floor, 1st Cross,

Behind CITI Bank ATM,

R.T.Nagar,

Bangalore-560 032.

…. Complainant.

V/s



Bharti Airtel limited,

355, Divyasree Towers,

Bannerghatta Road,

Bangalore – 560 029.



-: ORDER:-

This complaint is filed claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the Opposite Party on the following grounds:-



The complainant has availed Airtel Mobile CUG connections for the mobile numbers mentioned in the complaint. The complainant used to drop the cheques towards payment of the bill amount at the Airtel outlet, R.T.Nagar, Bangalore. For the month of September 2008, the cheque for Rs.9,541-86 paise was also dropped in the Airtel Outlet at R.T.Nagar on 05/10/2008. A mail to 121 Airtel Customer Care was also sent for the records of the Opposite Party. On one fine day, the complainant received a call from Airtel stating that there is no payment and the services will be disturbed.

On the earlier occasion all the cheques towards bills amount were honored. The complainant become tired of explaining all the Customer Care Executes about the details and they were firm not to request the Airtel and to issue new cheque. Even after explaining all the facts to Customer Care, the out going calls were barred on 07/11/2008 and the complainant used to make calls from public booth to contact their clients and staff. On the same day the complainant went to meet the higher ups in Bannergatta Road. The executive attending Customer outside the desk said that they cannot meet anybody and talk to 121 services. Accordingly the complainant spoke to Miss.Aishwarya in 121 and told her about the issues and she informed that they can write a mail to Nodal Officer and they will solve the issue. The complainant write mail to Nodal Officer on 10/01/2008 explaining all the problems and again they were asked to furnish the details and the same were furnished.

The complainant wrote another letter to Nodal Officer on 14/01/2008 and again they were asked to furnish the details. Accordingly the details were furnished over phone. After a couple of interaction, they received call from Miss.Swetha and after the explanation, she expressed sorry for the inconvenience and asked to issue a new cheque. The complainant answered that they are not in a position to issue new cheque and that they want the higher ups of the Opposite Party to come to the office of the complainant to discuss further.

The said Executive assured to activate the outgoing calls within one hour. Accordingly, after a couple of hours, the outgoing calls were activated. But on 17/11/20087 the Mobile connections were disconnected completely and thereby the complainant was unable to talk to the customers or to the staff. The Airtel did not take any action to solve the issue. The complainant was forced to get assistance from other service providers to run the profession and in the mean time they were receiving calls from Airtel, Chennai for payments. Till today the whereabouts of the cheque dropped at the outlet is not known. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Pary is as under:-



The complainant is not a Consumer as defined U/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as it is a Company carrying on business for commercial purpose. The complainant is a subscriber of the Opposite Party which has provided six mobile telephone numbers to the Company under Close Users Group connection.

The Opposite Party has offered the facilities to the customers with respect to the payment of bill a mount by submitting the cheque in the outlets of the Opposite Party. The complainant also used to pay the bill amount by furnishing the cheque in the same manner and the payments were duly acknowledged by the Opposite Party on all such occasions. However, the contention of the complainant that it has dropped the cheque in R.T.Nagar outlet of the Opposite Party on 05/10/2008 for Rs.9,541-81 paise towards bill for the month of September – 2008 is denied. They have not received any cheque towards the bill for the month of September – 2008. Though several requests were made to pay the bill amount, the complainant went on urging about the dropping of the cheque which was never received by the Opposite Party. Even the complainant was requested to furnish the statement of account for having cleared the cheque alleged to have been dropped in the outlet, but the complainant failed to comply with the request.

Therefore having no other option, the mobile phone connections had to be suspended. The Opposite Party gave proper explanation to all the enquires made by the complainant and appraised about the non-receipt of the cheque alleged to have been dropped in the outlet. The complainant was also requested to make payment by another cheque or by cash by instructing the banker to stop payment of the alleged cheque to avoid misuse of the same. Even this request was also not honored by the complainant. The Customer Care Unit of the Opposite Party was well aware of the issue raised by the complainant. The complainant was making persistent enquiries in spite of the explanations given. The Customer Care Officials of the Opposite Party attended the complainant patiently and all the ‘e’ mails of the complainant were suitably replied.

Though the complainant was requested to furnish the statement of account for having cleared the alleged cheque, except forwarding the particulars of the cheque, the complainant did not furnish any other details of the payment. Since the complainant failed to pay the bill amount through a cheque to avoid disconnection, the complainant was rigid on this issue and therefore the complainant itself is responsible for disconnection of the mobile phone connections. The allegation that no action was taken to solve the issue is denied. The complainant himself was unable to get the problem solved at its end and has come up with the complaint without any reason. On these grounds, the Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



4. In support of the respective contentions, both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. The learned counsel for the Opposite Party has filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party

3. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our findings are:-

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 & 3 : Does not survive

for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

Point No.(1)

7. In Para-2 of the version it is specifically contended by the Opposite Party that the complainant is a Company carrying on business for commercial purpose and therefore not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. This contention of the Opposite Party has remained uncontroverted by the complainant. In the cause title to the complaint, the complainant is described as under:-

Saaraah Associates,

#3, 1st Floor, 1st Cross,

Behind CITI Bank ATM,

R.T.Nagar,

Bangalore-560 032.



The complaint is signed by Mr.N.Md.Shabazkhan as CEO of the complainant Firm. Admittedly the complainant has taken six mobile telephone connections from the Opposite Party. In the complaint it is also contended that since all the mobiles were completely disconnected on 17/11/2008, the complainant was unable to talk to the customers and to the staff and they lost three orders which they were supposed to sign on that day. Thus, the description of the complainant in the cause title to the complaint, the fact that the as many as six mobile connections were taken and the averments in the complaint make it clear that the complainant is a business firm doing business for commercial purpose.

The above circumstance supports the contention of the Opposite Party that the complainant is a company carrying on business for commercial purpose. If that is so, the complainant had availed the services of Opposite Party for commercial purpose and as such the complainant cannot be construed as a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act because a person availing the services for commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of Consumer so also to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to seek the relief. Since the complainant is not a Consumer he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to seek the relief against the Opposite Party.

The remedy available to the complainant is only by way of a civil suit before the Competent Civil Court and not under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly we answer point No.1 in the NEGATIVE holding that the complainant is not a Consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.



Point Nos.(2) & (3):-

8. In view of our finding on point No.1, these two points will not survive for consideration. Even otherwise, the dispute between the parties is with regard to payment towards the bill for the month of September 2008. The complainant claims that a cheque towards payment of the bill for the month of September 2008 was dropped in the outlet of the Opposite Party on 05/10/2008 as usual. But the Opposite Party contends that the said cheque is not at all received by them.

Nothing is produced to show that the cheque dropped in the outlet of the Opposite Party has been honored by the Bank or that the cheque amount is debited to the account of the complainant nor credited to the account of the Opposite Party. It is admitted by the complainant that before barring outgoing calls the Opposite Party informed the complainant about the non payment of the bill for the month of September 2008 and requested to make payment of the said bill. If that is so, without urging about the dropping of the cheque, the complainant could have made payment of the said amount, and thereby the disconnection of the mobile phone connections could have been avoided.

When the Opposite Party informed that the cheque said to have been dropped in the outlet is not received, it would have been wise on the part of the complainant to issue stop payment instructions to its Banker and make payment of the bill amount through another cheque. Even in these proceedings, the complainant has not produced any material to show that the alleged cheque has bee honored and the payment is made to the Opposite Party. If that is so, for non payment of the bill amount, the Opposite Party is entitled to disconnect the telephones and the same will not amount to deficiency in service. As such even assuming that the complainant is a Consumer for the above reasons, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. However, in view of our finding on point No.1 it is open to the complainant to approach the Competent Civil Court for the relief if so advised. In the result, we pass the following:-



-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.

Sh.Zenat Kumar S/o Sh. Sat Narayan, resident of Bhikhi Road, Ward No.10, Near Railway Crossing, Budhlada, District Mansa.

VERSUS

1.

Bharti Airtel Limited, Branch Circle Office, C/25, Industrial Area, Phase No.2, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali through its Manager.


2.

Sandeep Telecom, Gurdwara Chowk, Mansa, through its Proprietor /Partner/Manager.


This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Zenat Kumar son of Sh. Sat Narayan, a resident of Budhlada, Tehsil and District Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against the opposite parties, for conversion of his mobile connection from post paid to pre paid service and for payment of compensation in the

Contd........2

: 2 :


sum of Rs.50,000/-, on the averments, which may briefly be described as under:

2. That the complainant secured mobile phone connection No. 9878432543 from the OP No.2, who is a dealer of OP No.1. The account number of the said connection is 107-104746560 and Sim Card Number is H 2,8991021107102814241. He approached the OP No.2 for conversion of postpaid into prepaid facility. The OP No.2 received a sum of Rs.50/- alongwith his photographs and proof of identity. The complainant was given new Sim Card No.8991020808035422694 and OP No.2 gave assurance that his mobile connection has been converted to prepaid service and issued receipt in the name of the complainant on 16.1.2009, but did not convert the service, as promised, due to which complainant has undergone mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint.

3. On being put to notice, the OP No.1 filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has filed the complaint with malafide intention to harass the opposite party; that he has claimed exorbitant amount and complicated questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint, as such, controversy cannot be adjudicated by this Forum in summary manner, as such, complainant be relegated to the civil court and complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs.

On merits, factum of issuance of mobile connection, referred above, by OP No.2 in the name of the complainant, is not denied. It is submitted that answering opposite party, has been granted license by Department of Telecommunication placed under Ministry of Communications, Government of India, to provide Unified Access Services, under Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, as per which he is to provide telephone services in various parts of the country including the State of Punjab. It is contended that as per terms and conditions of license, the licensee is to scrupulously follow

Contd........3

: 3 :


the guidelines issued by the licensor regarding verification of consumer and to ensure that database of the licensee is directly entered in Customer/Subscriber Acquisition Form and supporting documents and if he finds any discrepancy , then to deactivate the mobile connection, not later than 72 hours. The licensee is also under obligation, to cross verify the information given by the user, by calling the subscriber. It is also submitted, that the licensor may impose penalty in the sum of Rs.1,000/-, upon the licensee, for each unverified subscriber, which has been enhanced to Rs.50,000/- vide letter dated 24.12.2008 issued by the licensor. As such, duty is cast upon the licensee, to ensure that subscriber duly fills in enrollment forms, both prepaid and postpaid, and shall give proof of his identity and residence. In case of conversion from postpaid to prepaid service and vice versa, subscriber is required to submit migration form alongwith Customer/Subscriber Acquisition Form, as such, service cannot be provided by the answering opposite party or its dealers/agencies merely on payment of charges.

It is submitted that in order to ensure the compliance of the instructions issued by the licensor, the answering opposite party has executed an agreement with its independent associates for verification of identity and residence of the subscribers. It is also contended that Sh.Dharamveer Walia, Proprietor of OP No.2, undertook vide Principal Agreement dated 9.3.2005 and Supplementary Agreement dated 2.8.2006, to ensure compliance of directions issued by the licensor regarding identification and residence ,at the time of activating the connection. It is admitted that complainant secured postpaid mobile connection on 17.3.2008 from the answering opposite party and made request for conversion of his mobile connection from postpaid to prepaid on 16.1.2009. In compliance of his request, his service was converted from postpaid to prepaid on 17.1.2009 and Sim Card No.89910208080354 22694 was given to him and the prepaid service was activated on 30.1.2009, but was deactivated on 14.2.2009 due to non submission of Contd........4

: 4 :


Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form, Migration Form, residential address and identity. However, it is submitted that the opposite party has retained the number of the complainant and the same can be activated by submitting these documents. It is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party or complainant has been subjected to mental and physical harassment. Rest of the averments made in complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with costs.

4. The learned counsel for the OP No.2 made a statement on 9.4.2009, that written version filed by OP No.1 be also read as written version on behalf of OP No.2.

5. On being called upon by this Forum, to do so, the counsel for the complainant tendered his affidavit, Exhibit C-1 and closed the evidence. On the other hand the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Birinder Singh, Assistant Manager (Legal) and copies of documents Ext.OP-1 to OP-5 and closed evidence, whereas learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 suffered a statement that evidence led by OP No.1 be read as evidence of OP No.2 before he closed evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them, carefully, with their kind assistance.

7. Learned counsel for the OP No.1, Sh. S.P.Gupta, Advocate, has submitted at the outset that complicated questions of law and facts are involved, as such, controversy cannot be adjudicated by this Forum in summary manner, but by the civil court after giving opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. Learned counsel urged that complainant be relegated to avail remedy in the civil court.

8. On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant Sh. J.R.Gupta, Advocate has submitted that in view of the admitted facts and Contd........5

: 5 :


material placed on record, matter can be comfortably decided in summary manner by this Forum instead of relegating the complainant to file suit before the civil court.

9. We find merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant, because material facts concerning the controversy in dispute have been admitted by the opposite parties in their written version and are proved by the contents of the documents placed on record by them. As such, in our opinion, controversy can be resolved in summary manner by this Forum and no ground is made for relegating the complainant to avail remedy before the civil court.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that as per admissions made in the written version by the opposite parties, the complainant deposited the requisite amount for conversion of mobile connection from postpaid to prepaid service and they issued receipt and Sim Card, but deactivated the same after considerable delay without any justifiable reason, as such, deficiency in service on their part is clearly established, as such, complainant is entitled to seek direction for restoration and payment of compensation , as prayed for.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1, has submitted that an amount of Rs.177.11 is outstanding towards the complainant on account of calls made by him on his mobile which he is liable to deposit with the opposite parties to avail prepaid facility. Learned counsel has further argued that the opposite parties are required to ensure compliance of instructions issued by the licensor and in case failure on their part, they may invite penalty. In this regard learned counsel has drawn our attention to various documents placed on record. Learned counsel also submitted that as the complainant did not fill in Enrollment and Migration Forms and failed, to produce any document pertaining to his identity and proof of his residence, therefore, opposite parties were left with no option but to deactivate his mobile connection after the

Contd........6

: 6 :


same was converted from postpaid to prepaid, as per his request. Learned counsel further argued that instructions issued by the licensor are complied with by the dealers on deposit of documents but as a goodwill gesture, connection is activated, as such, there is no deficiency in service which may warrant interference of this Forum.

12. Learned counsel for OP No.2 Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate has only reasserted the arguments raised by the counsel for OP No.1 almost in verbatim in the course of arguments.

13. As per admissions made in the written version by the OP No.1, mobile connection was issued in the name of the complainant by OP No.2, who is dealer of OP No.1, at Mansa. It is also admitted, that on the request of the complainant, OP No.2 received the requisite fee from him for conversion of postpaid to prepaid facility on 16.1.2009 and made the requisite conversion on 17.1.2009 and issued him Sim Card No. 8991020808035422694. However, the said facility was activated on 30.1.2009, but again deactivated on 14.2.2009 due to non submission of prepaid enrollment form, Migration Form, fresh proof of identity and residence. Since he was old customer and has not changed his address, therefore, there was no occasion for him to furnish fresh document and supply of proof of his identity and residence. Moreover, as per copy of letter dated 22.11.2006, Ext.OP-2, written by Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, Government of India produced on record by the opposite parties themselves, mobile connections and Sim Cards are to be activated only after fulfilling the Customer Acquisition Form, production of documentary proof and fulfillment of other requirements. They can be deactivated immediately, but not later than 72 hours in case any discrepancy is found on verification of his identity and residence at a subsequent stage. The opposite parties have not disclosed the date in the written version when the factum of non submission of prepaid enrollment form, proof of identity and residence, came to their knowledge. The

Contd........7

: 7 :


opposite parties have issued new Sim Card to the complainant on 16.1.2009 and activated prepaid service on 30.1.2009, as per their own version, but they deactivated his mobile connection on 14.2.2009 without giving him opportunity of being heard. However, as per copy of statement of account Ext.OP-5, Rs.177.11 is outstanding towards the complainant on account of calls made by him on his mobile telephone. He has not denied the said fact in his affidavit, Ext.C-1, tendered in evidence. The interest of justice demand that he shall pay outstanding amount before restoration of his connection to the opposite parties.

14. In the light of our above discussion, we have no option but to accept the version of the complainant that due to delay of 15 days in activation of prepaid service on his mobile connection, and deactivation thereof without justifiable cause, is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, because of which he has been subjected to mental and physical harassment.

15 For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite parties to restore the mobile connection of the complainant after he deposits a sum of Rs.177.11 outstanding towards him and to pay him a sum of Rs.2,000/- on account of compensation for mental and physical harassment. The liability of the opposite parties to pay the amount of compensation would be joint and several. The compliance of the order be made within a period of 15 days by the complainant and by the opposite parties, within a period of 15 days thereafter.

K.Venkatesh

S/o Late Krishna Murthy Rao,

Aged about 53 yrs,

Residing at No.63/1,

3rd Cross, Raghavendra Colony,

Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018.

…. Complainant.

V/s

01. M/s Univercell,

Kempe Gowda Commercial Arcade,

K.G.Road, Bangalore

Represented by its proprietor


02. M/s Bharathi tele-Ventures Ltd.,

No.55, Divyasree Towers,

Bannerghatta Main Road,

Bangalore – 560 018,

Represented by its M.D.

…. Opposite Parties

-: ORDER:-

This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to refund Rs.280/- towards unused currency in phone account No.9663087117and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for causing inconvenience and mental agony on the following grounds:-

2. The complainant purchased a NOKIA Mobile Handset on 21/12/2008 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.5,600/- along with Airtel Sim Card for Phone No.9663087117 and the Mobile Handset was activated after completing all the formalities and obtaining necessary documents on 23/12/2009. He paid Rs.300/- towards recharge and the phone connection was having unused currency of Rs.280/-. In the last week of January – 2009, the Mobile was deactivated by Opposite Party No.2 without any notice.

He approached Opposite Party No.2 and requested to reactivate the connection, but Opposite Party No.2 gave an endorsement that the mobile cannot be activated on account of non documentation. He issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties demanding Rs.280/- towards unused currency and Rs.5,000/- as damages. But the Opposite Parties did not even give reply to the said notice. The complainant had availed the phone connection for the purpose of his business and had given his contact number to all the persons having business dealings with him. Due to sudden deactivation of the connection, he got bad reputation and lost so many business contacts and a consequence he has undergone lot of mental agony.

3. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party No.1 – M/s UNIVERCELL has remained absent. Opposite Party No.2 M/s Bharathi tele-Ventures Ltd., has opposed the claim on the following grounds:-

The complainant has suppressed several material facts which are relevant to adjudicate the dispute. The complainant was a subscriber in respect of the Mobile connection Number 9663087117 which was activated w.e.f. 23/12/2008. Activation of Mobile facility to a Subscriber is subject to certain terms and conditions to be fulfilled by the Subscribers. The TELECOM REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF INDIA has formulated certain directive guidelines to be followed by all the telecom service providers. One such mandatory guideline is that, the Opposite Party No.2 is required to obtain and verify the identity proof and address proof to have the Mobile telephone facility.

The activation of the Mobile facility to the complainant was also subject to production of identity proof and address proof which is subject to verification by the officials of the Opposite Party. While activating the mobile facility to the complainant on 23/12/2008, since the documents were incomplete, the complainant was informed to furnish necessary documents regarding address and identity proof within seven days from the date of activation. On 28/12/2008 through SMS, the complainant was reminded in that regard. But the complainant did not bother to produce the necessary documents and therefore on 31/12/2008 all the out going calls from the telephone of the complainant were barred with telephonic information.

He was once again requested to furnish the documents as per the TRAI guidelines as early as possible to avoid disconnection of the mobile telephone facility. Even after repeated requests, the complainant was unable to fulfill the conditions and therefore on 31/01/2009 the mobile telephone of the complainant was disconnected. The guidelines issued by the Union of India, Ministry of Telecommunication and the consequent condition imposed by Opposite Party No.2 to the subscriber for production of necessary documents is keeping in mind the National Security in order to avoid usage of telephone facility by Anti Social Elements on the basis of fake documents. The complainant who has suffered disconnection of Mobile telephone facilities for non production of the documents cannot blame Opposite Party No.2.

The complainant is not entitled for any refund of residual value in the SIM Card/magic Card in the event of deactivation of the facility which in-fact due to the mistake on the part of the complainant. The Airtel Pre Paid Customer enrollment form to be filled up by the subscriber also contains such conditions. The de-activation was made only after information through SMS and calls. Since reason for disconnection was intimated to the complainant prior to the legal notice, the question of giving reply to the notice or complying with the demand will not arise. On these grounds, the Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. In support of the respective conditions both the parties have filed affidavits. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant had purchased NOKIA Mobile Handset from Opposite Party No.1 is not disputed. No allegation of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 is made by the complainant. Admittedly it is Opposite Party No.2 who de-activated the mobile connection. Therefore, without any allegations of deficiency in service made against Opposite Party No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as against Opposite Party No.1. The fact that the mobile phone was activated on 23/12/2009 is admitted by Opposite Party No.2 also. Though the complaint is filed on 20/03/2009, in Para-2 of the complaint, the complainant has stated that the mobile was activated on 23/12/2009. Even in the version filed on 20/05/2009, the Opposite Party has given the date as 23/12/2009, 28/12/2009 and 31/12/2009 as could be seen from Para-4 of the version.

This appears to be a mistake on the part of both the parties in mentioning the date as December 2009 instead of 2008. It is also not in dispute that in January – 2009, the telephone connection was deactivated. As contended in Para-3 of the complaint, the complainant had the information as conveyed by Opposite Party No.2 that the deactivation of the connection was for non-production of the necessary documents. In the version also it is the specific contention of the Opposite Party that the complainant failed to furnish identity proof as well as address proof in spite of several reminders and therefore they had no option but to deactivate the connection. Along with the version, the Opposite Party has also produced the copy of the message sent to the complainant on 27/12/2008, 31/12/2008 and 07/01/2009.

By the message dated 27/12/2008, the complainant was called upon to produce the address proof, photo identity proof. By the Message dated 31/12/2008 the complainant was informed that the documents are not yet received therefore the out going calls will be barred as per the TRAI order. By the message dated 07/01/2009 again the complainant was informed that the required documents were not received and therefore the incoming calls will also be barred. The fact that these messages were sent to the complainant by Opposite Party No.2 is not denied by the complainant even in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence. If that is so, after activation of the mobile handset on 23/12/2008, the complainant was called upon to produce necessary documents towards address proof and identity proof and in spite of three reminders, the complainant failed to produce the documents.

Opposite Party No.2 has also produced the copy of the notification dated 11/05/2005 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Communications and IT requiring the service providers to follow the instructions with regard to the address proof and identity proof of the subscriber who intends to avail telephone services. In accordance with the guidelines in the notification, Opposite Party No.2 called upon the complainant to produce the documents regarding the address proof and identity proof. When in spite of reminders, the complainant failed to furnish necessary documents, Opposite Party No.2 deactivated the connection on 31/01/2009.

In the above circumstances, the act of Opposite Party No.2 in deactivating the connection will not amount to deficiency in service. In the message dated 07/01/2009, Opposite Party No.2 even informed the complainant to submit the necessary documents and get the connection reactivated. Instead of doing so, the complainant has filed the present complaint. Even now it is open to the complainant to submit the necessary documents required by Opposite Party No.2 and get the mobile connection re-activated. In these circumstances, when the act of Opposite Party No.2 will not amount to deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for. In the result, we pass the following:-


-:ORDER:-

1. The complaint is DISMISSED. No order as to costs.

Jagdish Chand S/O late Shri Hari Mohan Singh,

Resident of Village Anhech, P.O.Dagshai, Tehsil

and District Solan, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus

Airtel Bharti Telecommunication Ltd.,

SDA Complex, Kasumpti, Shimla

Through its General Manager.

…Opposite Party

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OP averring therein, that the complainant purchased a Sim from the OP on 05.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs.200/- and was allotted mobile connection bearing No.98053-34333. It is averred that he recharged the aforesaid sim on 24.12.2007 by paying Rs.100/- and the validity of the said sim was till June, 2008. The complainant, further, proceeded to aver, that, the aforesaid sim does function properly till 31.01.2008, but it started non-functioning and became inactive w.e.f. 01.02.2008, whereas, there was balance of Rs.33/- in the account of complainant.

The complainant approached the OP several times and apprised them of the non-functioning of the connection, but in vain. The complainant being respectable person of the area and he being agriculturist and Ex. Pardhan, has purchased the said sim for his personal use and for his business use for day to day affairs and due to mal-functioning of the sim, suffered loss, mental agony as well, as harassment as the marriage of his daughter was also scheduled on 28.02.2008 and has also mentioned the cell number in the marriage card. 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 version, to the complaint, raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, estoppel and lack of cause of action. On merits, it is admitted that mobile No.9805334333 was allotted to the complainant. It is denied that Shri Ajay Kumar is authorized dealer of the OP, rather the authorized dealer for Solan area is Bhatia Communications and its owner of Mr. Vaneet. It is contended that due to non-availability of address proof of the complainant, the connection was barred. 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 OP does not rebut the fact of sim card of the complainant as purchased by him from the OP, having remained non-functional or it having been deactivated w.e.f. 01.02.2008. It also does not dispute the fact that, the, deactivation was carried out by the OP despite a balance existing in the account of the complainant. The OP has proceeded to repudiate the claim of the complainant on the score, that, with Annexure R-1, necessitating, the, address verification of the subscriber so as to obviate the possibility, of, use of sim connections by suspected persons and, in, that endeavour, it, having detected that the address of the complainant could not be completely verified as there were two villages of the same name. As also, despite calls having been made to the complainant, he, not having received the calls, hence, process of verification having been rendered incomplete, the OP was compelled to deactivate the connection of the complainant.

6. Assuming that even if, there were two villages of the same name, yet, it was incumbent upon the OP to verify the address and identity of the subscriber from each of two villages bearing the sane name before coming to the conclusion that the address of the complainant, has, remained unverified, hence, compliance with the instruction contained in Annexure R-2, was occasioned, as such, his connection was required to be not continued.

However, there is no material on record that, any, official of the OP has proceeded to each of the two villages bearing the same name and then having detected that the complainant, did, not bear the identity as was given to the OP before obtaining the connection. Nor also, there, is, any material on record to substantiate the contention of the OP, in, its reply that the OP had proceeded to communicate to the complainant the necessity of his address being verified and that pending such verification, his, connection has to be discontinued. Therefore, the plea, as taken by the OP, to, hence, disconnect the connection as provided to the complainant, in, a slip shod and in a hot haste manner, is, untenable.

7. The above manner of depriving the complainant the facility as provided by the OP, in our view, is a deficiency in service. It has also caused harassment to the complainant who, is, a respectable person.

8. Even though, the complainant has claimed damages to the extent as detailed in the complaint. However, even if, accepting the fact that he was deprived of the sim card on its having been deactivated by the OP, to, invite his friends and relatives to his daughter’s marriage on 28.02.2008, yet with no satisfactory as well, as, direct proof, having been adduced by him that, he could not also avail of an equally efficaciously means of communication so as, to, invite his friends and relative or that such alternative efficacious means of communication for soliciting the presence of his friends and relatives was more expensive than, the mode as was made available to him, of which mode, he was, hence, deprived, in a hot haste manner of the OP in taking to deactivate the sim connection, we, are, of the considered opinion that no compensation ought to be awarded in favour of the complainant, except nominal damages.

9. In the light of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed in the following manners:-

i) The OP is directed to activate the mobile connection No.98053-34333;

ii) The OP is also directed to pay nominal compensation to the complainant, which in facts and circumstances of the case is quantified at Rs.1500/-;

iii) The litigation cost is assessed at Rs.1500/- payable by the OP to the complainant;

iv) This order shall be complied with by the OP within a period of forty five days , after the date of receipt of copy of this order;

Shingara Singh age 53 years s/o Amar Singh r/oVPO Jhingar Kalan Tehsil Dasuya District Hoshiarpur.

Complainant

vs.

1.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. C-25, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Mohali (Pb.) through its General Manager.
2.

Bharti Airtel Ltd. 407, Ist Floor, Lajpat Nagar, Mission Chowk, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Incharge.

Opposite parties
1.

The complainant namely Shingara Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act.”. In short,the facts of the case are that the complainant got mobile connection no. 9876501983 in the month of March,2006. The complainant regularly paid the monthly bills to Bharti Airtel till August, 2006. It is the case of the complainant that on 23.8.2006, he visited the shop of the OP-Company to disconnect his mobile connection no. 9876501983 and on the very next day i.e. 24.8.2006, he paid the balance bill amount of Rs.486/- vide receipt no. PMT-3-23514433 in order to close his account with regard to said mobile connection.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to know that the amount of Rs.5542/- is due towards him. Sh Deepak Sharma of Trehan Telecom has admitted in his statement that on 23.8.2006, the complainant visited for the disconnection of mobile connection no. 9876501983 and on his asking, the request was forwarded to Airtel Company . He has also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.486/- vide receipt no. PMT-3-23514433 dated 24.8.2006
3.

It is further the case of the complainant that he got the outgoing details of the said mobile connection. It was found that the outgoing calls were of some unknown connction. The complainant had never used the said mobile connection after 24.8,2006. It is further averred that the complainant had already destroyed the sim of said mobile connection. The complainant approached the opposite parties but of no consequences. A legal notice dated 15.6.2007 was also sent to the OPs but of no avail, hence this complaint.
4.

OPs filed the joint reply. Preliminary objection vis-a -vis maintainability, jurisdiction, concealment of material facts and resjudicata were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant had taken mobile connection no. 9876501983 from the OPs and the same was activated on 20.2.2006. It is admitted that the OPs have received a sum of Rs.486/- from the complainant..

It is further replied that as per record, a sum of Rs.5542/- is due towards the complainant. The complainant has paid for his usage and no undue charges have been claimed from him. It is further replied that the complainant earlier filed complaint on 7.8.2007 bearing no. 232/2007, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.12.2007. During the pendency of that complaint, the complainant had filed another complaint on 18.11.2007 bearing no.367/2007, which was dismissed in default. The complainant is concealing the said facts from the Court.
5.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, statement of Deepak Sharma Mark c-2, visiting card Mark C-3, bill of connection no.98765-01983 Mark C-4, detail of statement Mark C-5, legal notiice Mark C-6 and postal receipt Mark C-7 and closed the evidence.
6.

In rebuttal, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Parduman Singh Ex. OP-1 and invoice statement dated 7.1.2008 Mark OP-2 and closed the evidence.
7.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
8.

The learned counsel for the opposite parties very fairly and squarely conceded at bar that the complainant got his mobile connection No. 98765-01983 disconnected, however the opposite parties inadvertently, gave the command, as such the bill amounting to Rs. 5542.26 was wrongly issued. The learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the opposite parties are prepared to adjust the amount of Rs. 5542.26 and will not claim the said amount from the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that since the opposite parties have admitted their fault with regard to the issuance of a wrong bill amounting to Rs. 5542.26, therefore, the complainant is entitled to litigation costs.
9.

As a result of the above discussion, the opposite parties are directed not to claim the amount of Rs. 5542.26 from the complainant. Since the opposite parties have admitted their fault with regard to the issuance of the wrong bill of Rs. 5542.26, therefore, the complainant is entitled for litigation costs, which are assessed at Rs. 1000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

Sir

This is the compliant mail I have sent to airtel now I have paid my bills I want to file a case against airtel for using my contact list and speaking to my father and mother in rubbish manner Please help me My mail id is yashwanthbalaji@gmail.com


SIR

THIS IS YASHWANTH MY MOBILE NUMBER IS 9600018487 I HAVE NOT PAID MY BILLS BECUASE I AM OUT OF CITY FOR TWO MONTHS YOUR COLLECTION AGENCIES CALLED ME ON 170909 AT 06;00 PM I HAVE TOLD THEM I WILL PAY MY BILLS ON 1 ST OF COMING MONTH BUT THEY MADE A CONFERENCE CALL TO MY MOTHER AND FATHER AND SCOLDED MY MOTHER AND MY MOTHER STARTED CRYING AND THEY DID NT LEFT MY MOTHER AND ASKED MY MOTHER TO TRANSFERED THE CALLTO MY FATHER HE INSULTED MY FATHER AS FRAUD HE IS AUTHORISED GOVT OFFICIAL WHEN I STARTED SHOUTING THEY SCOLDED ME BY TELLING THAT YOU ARE NOT ELGIBLE TO PAY YOUR BILLS ARE THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS OR NOT AFTER THAT THEY CALLED THE NUMBERS IN MY CALLING LIST IS THIS THE CONFIDENTIALITY IS THIS IS THE RULES OF TRAI ARE U AIRTEL OR A PAWN BROKER I WILL SUBMIT THE POST DATED CHEQUE TODAY TO MY NEAREST AIRTEL SHOW ROOM I WANT A APOLOLGY LETTER FROM THAT COLLECTION AGENT FOR PESTERING MY FATHER AND FRIENDS OR ELSE I WILL FILE A CASE AGAINST THATGUY AND AIRTEL FOR PERSONAL INSULT THEN FOR WHAT YOU HAVE RULES IN YOUR MANUAL I AM DAMP SERIOUS ON THIS CALL ME ON 9500510767 IF YOU WISH REPLY IMMEDIATELY WORST AND NEVER SEEN SERVICE LIKE THIS FOR DAMP MONEY CHECK MY PREVIOUS BILLS THANKS AND REGARDS


AS PER THEIR EXECUTIVE I HAVE PAID MY BILLS NOW MY FRIENDS ARE CALLING AND ASKING WHY YOU HAVE NOT PAID YOUR BILLS THIS IS A GREAT INSULT DO YOU OR YOUR CHAIRMAN WILL TAKE RESPONSILE FOR THIS INSULT ?

YASHWANTH

Respected sir,
i have a problem to refund my total fees and original documents from a college " geeta engineering college,naultha,distt-panipat(haryana).i could not continue my study in the college due to economical problem.i had been deposit "59100" rupees and documents. For refund,i had been given five time application in this institute.but they did not give me any satisfied answer.
Please sir, refund my total fees and documents from that college.
Thanking you.

Respected Sir,
This is Atul from Delhi, somtime before i complained to Airtel Customer Service, Eastern UP. Sir, i was a user of Airtel prepaid form feb 06 to march 09. I became a lifetime customer of Airtel on 27 dec.08. I was asked to recharge 200rs/ within 6 months as per policy of company for lifetime users. But, On apr. 09, when i used my sim card i found it was deactive. Therfore, i talked to customer care they informed me you did not make any single call to anyone, so it became deactive they also said to start me again submitting a photo and identity paper. Then i made all necessary process with 120 rs/ fee to restart my sim card.
But it could not start, i made them call and call. I mailed Airtel Customer Service more than 5 or 6 times which i can show you with unique identity number.
Now, what can i do? I should claim it in consumer court or not.
Related necessary infofmations:
sim holder name: Atul Kumar pandey
purchased from: Lucknow
mo. no. : 9936807750

Thank you
awating for an instant response

Atul Pandey
09899628985(New Delhi)