Orissa

Jharsuguda

cc/195/2020

Santosh Kumar Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

The CEO Bharati Airtel Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Self

11 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JHARSUGUDA.

 

                                                                     C.C.NO-195/2020

Santosh Kumar jena,

S/O:   Mrutyunjaya Jena,

     R/O:   Ramgarh,

     PO:  Orient Colliery Industrial Estate,

     PS :  Brajrajnagar, DIST-Jharsuguda, Orissa.                                     …… Complainants.

 

Versus

 

     The CEO,

Bharati Airtel Limited.

Bharati House, E-13/1, Infocity

Chandaka Industrial Estate,

Chandrasekharpur, Patia,

Bhabaneswar-751024                                                                     ………Opp. Parties.

 

            Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant           :           Self.               

For the Opp. Party               :-       None

 

Present:-      1. Shri  Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President

                                     2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member (W).

 

Date of Hearing:- 03.11.2021, Date of Order: 11.11.2021

                                                                             

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:-Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant regularly avails Recharge for his mobile amounting to Rs.698/-  from Airtel company  but the O.P fails to provide requisite services time to time. Maximum time there is no network in the mobile it notifies as “E” in spite of having 4G Plan. Except this call drop, Voice break, Voice Echo and network issues are the major problems being faced by the Complainant for which is not able to use his mobile. Again he stated that he is using two mobiles bearing no- 94375, 9937135848 and his mother is using mobile no-9937152848. He has made several complaints to the O.Ps but they are not taking any steps to resolve the problems. But the O.Ps are always taking the plea that we are continuously upgrading our network service, but we cannot provide the time line” which are proved to be fake assurance as there is no up gradation is going on. Again being aggrieved when the Complainant wanted to port out from AIRTEL to other net he receives a message from AIRTEL Company on dtd. 22.09.2020 through mobile no- 03340879700 directing the Complainant not to port out of AIRTEL assured to solve the issue.  So the Complainant claims that he is paying full amount for the recharge but receiving bad services since near about 2 years. Again for the prepaid number 99371 52848 the Company executive asked me small recharge pack of Rs.50/- and I did accordingly but it did not accept the recharge by the mobile number.  Again the executive directed me to recharge for Rs. 220/- of Rs.197/- which was also a fraud.  The Complainant felt that the Company any how trying to keep binding the customer and do not want to quit them their network hence cheating their customers.  On dtd. 04.09.2020 the AIRTEL company give message for another plan for another mobile number 9937135848 for up gradation of present plan to 199+ GST =235/- for unlimited call along with 10 GB data & 100 SMS per day. But they gave only 10 GB data for the entire month which is misguiding. So the Complainant finding no other way sought relief from this Commission.

 

The O.P, despite of service of notice he did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

 

            From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased/availed numbers of SIM cards from the O.P on payment. In every recharge the O.P did not provide the facilities  or benefits which is assured to the customer by his company rather cheated the customer by not providing adequate network services or related additional offers related to the recharge packages time to time. This matter has been well settled in the matter of Swaraj Sharma vs Airtel & Anr. decided on 31 March, 2009 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan. So we feel that the O.P has committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practices and we order as under.

 

ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P is directed to refund the recharge amount of Rs.2,792/-( 4 times recharge @ Rs.698/month) to the Complainant with 9% interest  per annum from the date of filing the complaint, i.e., dtd. 23.12.2020 till its realisation." The O.P is further directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand)as compensation and Rs10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) towards the cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law. 

            Order pronounced in the open court today i.e, on 11^th day of November-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

 

I agree,

                                                                                               

 

MEMBER.(W)                                                                                              PRESIDENT.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                                By me.

           

 

                                                            PRESIDENT.