​

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

SH. S. N. SHUKLA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

   On 22.8.2012, the complainants had entered into an agreement with the OP who had promised to provide  a combo facility of INTERNET TV CABLE and Broadband connection. The complainant had paid a sum of Rs 1750/- vide cheque no. 136374 dated 22.8.2012. It is alleged that even though the work of wiring was carried out at the house of the complainants by 29.8.2012, the connection was not activated despite several requests including letters dated 5.9.2012 and 10.10.2012. On 30.11.2012, one Mr. Abhimanyu a manager of the OP visited the complainants and apologized for the lapse of the activation of the connection. He requested the complainants to issue another cheque for Rs 1750/- and promised to activate the connection and to refund the amount of Rs.1750/- earlier paid by the complainants. The complainants, therefore, issued another cheque bearing no. 136392 dated 30.11.2012  for Rs 1750/- in favour of the OP. The grievance of the complainant is that despite receiving a sum of Rs. 3500/- , the Ops had not activated the connection nor refunded the sum of Rs 3500/- received towards the services. Hence, the complaint.

    The ops have contested the complaint and have denied any deficiency of service on its part. Paras B C and F of the preliminary objections and submission are relevant and are being reproduced as under:-

B. The issue under consideration is that the complainant had applied for getting an IPTV connection. The complainants allege that the same was not activated by the OP2. It is submitted that the Customer Enrolment form was received only on 30^th Nov 2012, but the same was rejected by the OP no. 2 due to non reciept of Proof of Address (POA). When the customer enrolment Form was received against the same could not be processed because the IPTV pricing had increased from Rs 1750/- to Rs 3500/- and the rental had increased by 7% i.e. Rs 1099 and Rs 1200. Thus, no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainants and against the answering OP . The IPTV connection would have been activated on 30.11.2012 itself if the complainant no. 2 had submitted a form complete with all documents. Since, the same was not done on the part of the complainant; the complainants cannot blame the answering OP for the same.

c. it is submitted that it is common knowledge that due to heightened security concerns, it is mandatory for the answering OP to verify details of the address in order to activate telephone connections/ IPTV connections. The DOT has put an obligation upon the answering OP with respect to the same.

F. It is submitted that it is a matter of record that the answering OP offered to refund an amount of Rs 3500/- to the complainants on the first date of hearing itself. At the hearing that took place on 28.1.2014, the complainants refused to accept the refund. The act of the complainants disentitles the complainants from claiming any interest on the refund amount. The answering OP is still ready and willing to refund an amount of Rs. 3500/-.

The Ops have contested the complaints on merits and have reiterated that there are no merits in this complaint which is liable to be dismissed. The Ops have prayed accordingly.

    We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

    It may be stated that the Ops has not denied that they had collected a sum of Rs 1750/- from the complainant on 22.8.2012 and another sum of Rs. 1750/- on 30.11.2012 for providing services as promised. It has been admitted that despite this the connection was not activated even though the wiring work had been completed by 29.8.2012.  The complainants have written a letter dated 5.9.2012 which was followed by a letter dated 10.10.2012 to the CEO of the Ops. The letter inter-alia  reads as under:-

   5.9.2012

Please permit me to bring to your kind notice that on 22/8/2012 your executive Mr. Pawan Solanki (Mob 9718204342) booked our Broadband(IPTV) connection @ Rs 1099+ Tax (under 107 channel scheme) and took an advance cheque of Rs 1750/- and the manager Abhimanyu Confirmed the same with an assurance that installation of internet, set of box and tel etc would be completed in 2-3 days.

We were assured that choice of number would be offered. Later it was arbitrarily allotted without our consent. When asked, after 2-3 days mr. Solanki offered us another number 45011425. After that some other executive called us on that number has been wrongly allotted and when we protested on this issue, in consultation with one another, they conceded on this telephone number. wiring work was undertaken by Mr. Nikki and installation work was taken up partly by Mr. Mantosh and mr anil.

Finally installation was completed on 29.8.2012 (Late evening ) and all along this period between 22^nd and 29^th August 2012, they stuck to the tarrif plan of 1099+ tax. But when activation was to take place  some unknown voice from so called welcome desk I was told that the plan is Rs. 1200+tax. Meanwhile your engineer anil and executive solanki was pressing  me to okay the plan with an assurance that they would have it reversed tomorrow itself.

Please investigate the matter on priority as these ugly episodes can tarnish the image of the company and there is no provision where tariff can be changed retrospectively without the knowledge of your own staff and persons accountable.

Thanking you

Sd/-Alka Mohan

Letter dated 10.10.2012

This has referred to my complaint dated 5.9.2012 which was handed over personally to the manager Airtel-Miss Deeepti (9971183387) at Pusa Road Branch (Copy encloased for ready reference)

    Your co executive signs an agreement collects and installation is carried out after encashment of cheque and asks for higher tarrif at the time of activation following dismantling of our earlier internet (MTNL) connection and cable , tv connections besides defacing our walls / promises with clamps etc.

    This is nothing short of blackmail and customer exploitation and least expected from a company with presence in other countries already there is inordinate delay and no effort has been made to resolve, the issue, which atleast now calls for your immediate attention and redressal. If you fail to respond we may be constrained to take up the matter at the appropriate forum.

       Sd/-                            

       Alka Mohan

Since nothing was done by the Ops nor were these letters responded to the complainants wrote two more letters dated 23.1.2013 and 14.8.2013 which inter-alia reads as under:

23.1.2013

Kindly refer to my earlier complains dt 10 Oct sent directly and dt 5.9.2012 sent through your manager Miss Deepti at Pusa Road New Delhi.

It is humbly submitted that your manager Mr Abhimanyu who had earlier duped us of our money paid by cheque (towards combo plan) again handed at our place on 30.11.2012 around 20:00 Hrs. He pleaded guilty for the earlier lapse and appologised for the inordinate delay in servicing and execution for which they had taken cheque and encashed. Mr. Abhimanyu stated that since he was on leave he couldn’t inform us earlier that a further discount of Rs 150/- per month can be offered being valued customer of Airtel mobile. He insisted on another cheque informing today is the last day of the scheme cheque no 136392 dt 30.11.2012 for Rs 1750/- at HDFC bank was collected and encashed with an assurance that installation/ activation would not take more than 2-3 days. Now its almost 2 months passed, your company has not bothered to service the customers for which advance payment has been taken.

    Kindly resolve the long standing issue and take appropriate action against the erring manager/ executive failing which we shall be constrained to seek legal remedy for which act costs in regard to recover, compensation, legal fee, expenses etc would be borne by you.

    Sd/-

Alka Mohan

14.8.2013

Sub: Fradulent unethical practices being employed by your executives appropriate remedy requested on priority please.

Dear Sir,

    Please refer to my earlier submissions dated 15.9.2012 , 10.10.2012 and 23.1.2013 seeking your intervention in resolving the issue pending since long.

    Your mute posture to my above notices clearly indicates that your management form Part and parcel of the ugly misdeeds of your employees and are in direct collusion with the erring employee committing economic offences thereby causing hurt to senior citizens through physical and mental torture besides depriving them of their hard-earned money resource.

Kindly resolve the long standing issue and take appropriate action against the erring manager executive, failing which we shall be constrained to seek legal remedy for which all cost in regard to recover, compensation, legal fee and expenses etc would be borne by you.

               Sd-

               Alka Mohan

    It appears to us that exasperated by the “Devil may care” attitude of the Ops , the complainants has approached this forum with the present complaint at the cost of repetition we may state that none of these letters were replied to by the Ops nor were their grievances attended to. Instead on appearance before us in response to the notice of the present complaint, the OP offered to refund the sum of Rs. 3500/- received by it to the complainants. In our considered opinion, the complainants were justified in refusing to accept the refund of the aforesaid amount without any compensation / cost of litigation.

   It appears to us that the Ops were grossly deficient in rendering service to the complainants.it had entered into an agreement with the OP on 22.8.2012 but having received the sum of Rs. 1750/- it had failed to perform its part of the obligation. Not only this it had again received a sum of Rs 1750/- from the complainants on 30.12.2012 but had again failed to perform its part of the promise. There is no reason whatsoever as to why Ops kept with them the amount of Rs. 3500/- received from the complainants and did not refund the same immediately when no service was being provided to them. There is no explanation on record from the side of the Ops as to why they did not respond to the various letters written by the complainants including the ones written to their CEO. It speaks volumes about the matter in which amounts to being collected from the customers without any service being provided to them. We cannot help observing that a no. of such customers may not have approached this forum for redressal of their grievances. We , therefore, direct the Ops jointly and severally as under:-

1. Refund to the complainants a sum of Rs 3500/-.
2. Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs 25,000/- as compensation for pain and agony suffered by them.
3. Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. After payment of the aforesaid amount the Ops shall take back the equipment installed at the premises of the complainants but shall ensure that there is no damage to the walls etc due to dismantling.

The OPs shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OPs fail to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

    Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.  File be consigned to record room.

    Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................

(S N SHUKLA)                        (RAKESH KAPOOR)

     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT