Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/866/2019

Dr. Adarsh Kohli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Preeti Kalia & Harpreet Kaur

14 Dec 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION -I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/866/2019
Date of Institution	:	22/08/2019
Date of Decision	:	14/12/2020

 

Dr. Adarsh Kohli wife of Sh. A.P.S. Kohli, R/o Kothi No. 101, Sector 24-A, Chandigarh.

 

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No. 21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park in Bharti Airtel Camus, I.T. Park, Chandigarh, through its Nodal Officer.

…… Opposite Party

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms. Preeti Kalia, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh. Sanjiv Pabbi, Counsel for Opposite Party.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant had to travel Halifax, Canada for an international conference from 30.05.2019 to 02.06.2019 and for that purpose, she bought an international roaming pack worth Rs.3599/- from Opposite Party on her Mobile number which got activated on 27.05.2019. The validity of said roaming pack was of 10 days and it was to expire on 06.06.2019. However, even after 06.06.2019 the Opposite Party auto-activated the said roaming pack without any intimation or consent for which the Opposite Party raised a bill of Rs.8964.46, which led to inconvenience and harassment to her. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case. 
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed reply, inter alia, admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that there was a request for 10 days international roaming pack, for which there was no deactivation request received. The Complainant was charged at discounted rates from the date of next usage and not the standard tariff. The services were utilized and the international roaming was active. The Complainant is therefore liable to pay the charges. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed a replication, wherein she has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.
7.         It is not disputed that the Complainant got activated an international roaming pack, the validity of which was for 10 days i.e. from 27.05.2019 to 06.06.2019.
8.         The Complainant claims that the Opposite Party twice auto-activated said roaming pack without her consent/ intimation on 08.06.2019 and 20.06.2019 for 10 days each, due to which she got three incoming calls which caused hardship and inconvenience to her during holidays as she had no intentions to attend any calls from her patients. It is very surprising that despite having the knowledge that her international roaming pack was active, the Complainant did not submit/send any request to the Opposite Party through SMS/E-mail or any other mode to deactivate the said pack rather, she chose to utilize the services of the Opposite Party during international roaming.
9.         It is not the case of the Complainant that she made a request to the Opposite Party to deactivate the said international roaming and despite that the Opposite Party failed to deactivate the same. Since the services were utilized and the international roaming was active, to our mind, the Complainant is liable to pay for the services utilized.  Hence, in our opinion, no case is made out against Opposite Party and the present Complaint qua Opposite Party deserves to be dismissed. 
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we do not find even a shred of evidence to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party. Consequently, the Consumer Complaint fails and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

14^th Dec., 2020

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 

 “Dutt”