BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.416 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 08.10.2018

      Date of Decision: 22.10.2019

Pawan Chopra S/o Sh. Ram Lubhaya Chopra R/o NB266 Lakshmi pura, Jalandhar, Age 58 years.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Bharti Airtel Ltd., Bharti crescent, 1, nelson mandela road, vasant kunj, phase-II, new delhi. through its Manager/Representative/Owner/Partner, Chairman.

2.       Airtel Store, Shop No.26-27, UGF & LGF, Modal Town Market, Next to Avtar Shoes, Jalandhar 144001 through its Manager/Representative/Owner/Partner, Chairman.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Sh. Karnail Singh           (President)

Smt. Jyotsna                   (Member)

Present:       Sh. Rajat Chopra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. MS Sachdev, Adv Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a consumer and OP is providing the cellular network to the complainant with the connection bearing No.9815065003 with the relationship No.107-103719775. The complainant is using the connection of the OP for the last so many years. Complainant is facing billing discrepancy in the number mentioned in the above Para. An email was sent by the complainant to the OPs about the billing discrepancy, then complainant received a call from the representative of the OPs and lame excuses was given by the representative of the OPs, but complainant explained that he is under the bill plan of 349 out of which two components are active one is 100 Rs. Rental Discount and another is 200 Rs bill value discount. The same was verified by the complainant on 30 September, 2018 at 10:25AM by getting a screen short, which is placed on the file. On 02.10.2018, the complainant received a mail and the message that Rs.100/- rental discount is 6 months retention has been deactivated, but the complaint never gave any request for the deactivation of the same. The OP is changing the plan of the complainant at their own wishes, which is illegal. The bill sent by the complainant from 26 August, 2018 to 25 September 2018 is illegal and against the benefits provided to the complainant. The OP is in habit of harassing its customers by doing this type of acts as for this type of minor issues customer do not come to the Court and the OP is getting undue benefit in case consumer do not make the payment on time, the OP suspend the services of the consumer in order to save the services consumer make the payment as there is no method to make the payment under protest. The OP indulged in this unfair trade practices and mal practices as the OP is not providing services to its customers rather harassing its customers by creating a false bills and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to restore all the benefits as per the commitment and which were active before the filing of this complaint i.e. Rs.200/- bill value discount and Rs.100/- rental discount and further, OPs be directed to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- for harassment and mental agony and further, OPs be also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses and be also directed to correct the bill from August, 2018 to September, 2018 and refund the excessive amount taken from the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who appeared and filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court, titled as “General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and Anothers”, wherein categorically held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act, then the remedy under the general law is barred. So, in view of the above judgment, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present complaint. It is further alleged that no cause of action has arisen for filing the present complaint and even complaint deserves to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the answering OPs. On merits, it is admitted that the connection is stand in the name of the complainant and further submitted that the discount of Rs.100/- in the rental part, as mentioned by the complainant is not per se a benefit available, under the plan in which the complainant had got his connection activated. This was rather a benefit given to the complainant when he had desired to port out from the OPs with a view to retain him. The said benefit was valid for 6 months only. It is relevant to mention here that the said discount component was activated and provided to the complainant on 27 February, 2018 when he desired to port out by generating UPC Code. The same was again given to the complainant with effect from 21.11.2018 with intent to retain him when he again opted to port out. The same is still operating with his connection. It is also relevant to mention here that it is also clear from the documents that the benefit of Rs.100/- is a retention benefit only and that too for 6 months only and is not a part of construct/component of 349 plan opted by the complainant for his connection and further submitted that the complainant was rightly charged as per the bill plan opted by him and the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                In order to prove their respective assertions, both the parties placed on the file their respective documents.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

5.                Before going in detail of the allegations of the complainant, we take up it very precisely to the factum that the complainant alleged that he got mobile connection from OPs under the ‘bill plan of 349’, out of which two components are active, one is Rs.100/- Rental Discount and another is Rs.200/- bill value discount. This benefit is attached with the bill plan of 349 or not, is to be seen by this Forum only after going through the said plan i.e. Plan of 349, if the OP admitted that the above said benefits are attached with the said plan, then situation may be different, but in this case, the OP has categorically denied that the aforesaid benefits are not attached with the plan opted by the complainant rather the said benefit was given only to retain the complainant with the OP company, because the complainant wants to port his connection to some other company and that benefit was given for 6 months only to the complainant just to retain him. We find that in the absence of the terms and conditions of the said plan of 349, we are unable to accept the version of the complainant. It is bounded duty of the complainant to bring on the file the terms and conditions of the said plan, but for the best known reason, the complainant has not brought on the file the terms and conditions of the said plan, which shows that the benefits claimed by the complainant  are not attached with the said plan and accordingly, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant, therefore, complaint of the complainant  is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

6.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                                       Jyotsna                           Karnail Singh

22.10.2019                                        Member                          President