State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel Limited vs Gurpal Singh on 31 January, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009.
Date of Institution: 21.07.2009.
Date of Decision: 31.01.2012.
Bharti Airtel Limited, a Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956,
having its registered office at Aravali Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road,
Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 and its concerned Circle Office at
C-25, Industrial, Phase-II, SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab-160055.
.....Appellant.
Versus
Gurpal Singh S/o Sh. Kunda Singh, C/o Balvir Singh Ragi, St. No.2, SAS
Nagar, Abohar Road, Muktsar, District Muktsar, Punjab.
...Respondent.
First Appeal against the order dated
08.06.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Muktsar.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh.Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate.
For the respondent : Sh. K.S. Sekhon, Advocate.
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order will dispose of the following twelve (12) appeals, as the question of law and facts involved in all the appeals are the same:-
Sr.No. Case Number Parties Name 1. F.A. No.1027 of 2009 Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh 2. F.A. No.1172 of 2009 Spice Communication Limited Vs Gurinder Kaur & Anr. 3. F.A. No.1298 of 2009 Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Rajiv Kumar & Anr. 4. F.A. No.1529 of 2009 Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs Capt. Amarjit Singh. 5. F.A. No.1775 of 2009 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Shiv Kumar 6. F.A. No.402 of 2010 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Narinder Chauhan & Anr. First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 2 7. F.A. No.403 of 2010 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar & Anr. 8. F.A. No.702 of 2010 Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors. Vs Baljit Singh 9. F.A. No.1166 of 2010 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs Jagjit Singh 10. F.A. No.80 of 2010 Idea Cellular Limited Vs Satish Kumar 11. F.A. No.935 of 2011 Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Malkiat Singh 12. F.A. No.936 of 2011 Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.
Facts are taken from F.A. No.1027 of 2009 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Gurpal Singh, respondent/ complainant (In short "the respondent") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, pleading that he purchased a mobile phone set of make Nokia-N-73 from Singapore at the price of 450 Dollars in December, 2007. A sim of Airtel Company, having mobile phone no.99150-13703 was running in the said mobile phone which was issued in the name of Tejinder Singh son of Kirpal Singh, resident of Amritsar and the same was got transferred in the name of the respondent. The respondent has saved important and valuable photographs in the said mobile phone and the same was being used for his personal and domestic use.
3. On 16.08.2008 at about 3.00 p.m., he dialed his uncle's mobile phone no.98157-49698 and after talking with him, put the same in the pocket of the bag and paid for tea to shopkeeper Chhinda. After some time, he did not find the said mobile set in the pocket of the bag and he brought it to the notice of shopkeeper Chhinda, who tried to search for the mobile phone set, but could not find it and on dialing the mobile number of the phone of the respondent, it was disconnected by the person, who had stolen it. The respondent came to know from Airtel Company that the said thief continued using his mobile phone for two days and consumed the balance of Rs.76/77. First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 3
4. The respondent moved applications to the concerned police officials regarding the theft of the mobile phone, but no action was taken. The respondent also brought the matter of theft to the notice of the appellant, but to no effect. The respondent suffered financial loss as well as harassment due to the professional misconduct on the part of the appellant and is entitled to compensation. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to provide details of the calls of the mobile phone as mentioned above as well as to take action regarding the theft of the mobile phone of the respondent and also to pay compensation of Rs.70,000/-.
5. In the reply filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were taken that the respondent has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has filed a frivolous complaint, just to harass them and the respondent is not entitled to compensation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The present complaint involves complicated questions of facts and law which can be decided by the civil court and not by the Consumer Court. The respondent is seeking declaratory order, by asking to provide the details of the calls of mobile phone no.99150-13703 and to take action against the theft of said mobile set and the civil court is only competent.
6. On merits, it was submitted that the mobile no.99150-13703 was never active in the name of Tejinder Singh and the same is active in the name of the respondent from the very beginning and he is still enjoying the services of the appellant. The respondent supplied the copy of information report given to the police on 24th October, 2008 to New Age Communication, Kotkapura Road, opposite Gill Petrol Pump, Tehsil and District Muktsar, OP-2 (not made party in the appeal, hereinafter referred as "OP-2") and on receiving the request from OP-2, the sim of the respondent was swapped on 24th October, 2008 itself. All other allegations as contained in the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 4
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that that the respondent is consumer and the appellant is bound to supply call details, and accepted the complaint with Rs.2000/- as costs.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08.06.2009, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Forum or this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint regarding any dispute between the subscriber and the telecom authorities. The counsel for the appellant has relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case "General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishanan & Anr.", Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 decided on September 1, 2009 as well as the authority of the Hon'ble National Commission in case "Parkash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Limited & Anr.", Revision Petition No.1703 of 2010 decided on 21.05.2010. It was contended that the appeal may be accepted and the complaint may be dismissed.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the Consumer Protection Act is special enactment and u/s 3 of the Act, additional remedies are available and the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint and the appeal may kindly be dismissed.
13. We have considered the respective submissions advanced by the both the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the entire record placed on the file as well as the case law. First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 5
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case General Manager, Telecom Vs M. Krishanan & Anr. (supra) held that special remedy is provided u/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act and the dispute can be resolved by appointment of arbitrator. It was further held that that special law overrides the general law.
15. Thereafter, similar question again arose in case Parkash Verma Vs Idea Cellular Limited & Anr (supra), wherein the Hon'ble National Commission observed as follows:-
"Fora below have dismissed the complaint filed by the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Supreme Court in General Manager Telecom vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. - (2009)8 SCC 481 wherein it has been held that any dispute between the subscriber and the telegraph authority can be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only.
The judgment of the Supreme Court is binding on all the subordinate courts. There is no scope for interference. Dismissed."
16. The revisionist Prakash Verma filed the Special Leave to Appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 1.10.2010. The present appeal pertains to the dispute between the subscriber respondent Gurpal Singh and Bharti Airtel Limited, which is also similar to the above cases.
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission and the S.L.P. dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Commission has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present controversy between the parties.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is accepted and the impugned order under appeal dated 08.06.2009 is set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.1172 of 2009:-
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 6
20. Similarly, in F.A. No.1172 of 2009 (Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurinder Kaur & Anr.), Smt. Gurinder Kaur, respondent no.1/complainant is having a pre-paid connection bearing no.98559-41817 of appellant-Spice Communication. On 02.10.2008, respondent no.1 got recharged her mobile connection worth Rs.195/- from respondent no.2 as per rules of TRAI, she was to get full value i.e. Rs.195/-, but the appellant deducted Rs.5/- illegally and she received only Rs.190/- for calling charges. Later on, Rs.80/- were more deducted by the appellant illegally. On contacting the customer care executive of appellant, it was disclosed that three services i.e. internet service, cricket service and background song were running on the connection of respondent no.1 and for that, Rs.80/- were deducted. In fact, no such service was running on the said connection, nor respondent no.1 ever opted to initiate any such services. Later on, Rs.49.15 more were deducted from the account of respondent no.1 on 03.10.2008. Again on 04.10.2008 and 05.10.2008, Rs.20.15 were deducted on each day and on 06.10.2008, another sum of Rs.21.15 was deducted, leaving only Rs.058 paisa in the account of the respondent no.1. Alleging it to be deficiency in service, directions were sought to the appellant and respondent no.2 to close all the services, if any, initiated on the said connection, to reimburse the recharge value of Rs.195/- and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.
21. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondent no.2 by filing written reply.
22. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint only against the appellant vide order dated 04.05.2009, directing the appellant to refund/credit Rs.195/- and any other amount charged from respondent no.1 in her account with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of deduction till actual refund and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 7
23. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1172 of 2009 (Spice Communication Pvt. Ltd. Vs Gurinder Kaur & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 04.05.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
24. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.6110/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.1298 of 2009:-
25. Similarly, in F.A. No.1298 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Shiv Kumar & Anr.), Sh. Rajiv Kumar, respondent no.1/complainant purchased a Sim Card No.8991020208107499508 bearing mobile connection no.98159-17585 from respondent no.2, dealer of appellant. The said connection was under prepaid scheme and respondent no.1 supplied copy of identity card as identity proof. On 25.09.2008, respondent no.1 had gone to Delhi and on reaching there in the morning of 26.09.2008, he found the connection not in working order and the network service on his connection was barred due to unknown reason. Respondent no.1 returned on 27.09.2008 and on approaching respondent no.2, he was told that the services have been barred for non-furnishing of identity proof while purchasing the connection. Respondent no.1 told that he had already given copy of identity card issued by Election Commission of India, but respondent no.2 raised a quarrel. Respondent no.1 supplied another copy of said identity card, but even then the services were not restored. It was prayed that the appellant and respondent no.2 be directed to restore the services on the said mobile number immediately and pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 8
26. The complaint was contested by the appellant and respondent no.2 by filing written replies.
27. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing respondent no.1 to furnish a fresh identity proof with fresh photograph to respondent no.2, who will further submit the same to appellant within 7 days and then the appellant will activate the connection within 3 days. In case the said mobile connection has been activated in the name of some other consumer, the respondent no.1 be given some other mobile connection. Rs.5000/- were awarded as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
28. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1298 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Rajiv Kumar & Anr.) is accepted and the impugned order dated 20.05.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
29. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.3500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.1529 of 2009:-
30. Similarly, in F.A. No.1529 of 2009 (Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs Capt. Amarjit Singh), Capt. Amarjit Singh, respondent/complainant is holder/consumer of BSNL telephone no. (CKD) 248309 & 249379 and paying the telephone bills regularly. From January, 2009 to February, 2009, the telephone connection no.248309 & 249379 remained out of order for more than two months due to construction of main road at village Urapur. However, the appellants issued bill for the period 01.01.2009 to 28.02.2009 and the respondent deposited Rs.246/- on First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 9 24.03.2009 towards the said bill. The telephone no.249379 was under ADD ON scheme in the month of August, 2008 and despite the assurance to provide ID Caller set, the same was not supplied to the respondent despite repeated requests. Under the said scheme of free registration/no security for free broadband in rural area launched by the appellants in March, 2009, the broadband installed in the house of the respondent, did not work for four days. However, the respondent received a bill dated 05.04.2009 for the period 01.03.2009 to 31.03.2009, vide which appellants charged Rs.250/- as installation charges of broadband and Rs.500/- as deposit money for broadband. The respondent paid the said bill. Directions were sought to the appellants to refund Rs.246/- amount of bill dated 05.03.2009, not to charge Rs.250/- as installation charges Rs.500/- as deposit money of broadband, to provide ID Caller and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation.
31. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written reply.
32. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum quashed the demand of Rs.246/- raised vide bill dated 24.03.2009 and directed the appellants to provided an ID set, to revise the bill dated 05.04.2009 by excluding the amounts for installation and broadband charges and amount of Rs.256/- claimed for 'bill number is of unbilled amount' as the same has already been deposited. Rs.5000/- were awarded as compensation.
33. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1529 of 2009 (Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs Capt. Amarjit Singh), is accepted and the impugned order dated 17.09.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 10
34. The appellants In F.A. No.1529 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs.2500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.3 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.1775 of 2009:-
35. Similarly, in F.A. No.1775 of 2009 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Shiv Kumar), Sh. Shiv Kumar-respondent/complainant got four mobile connections of Airtel bearing Nos.(1) 98729-74287, (2) 98729-75287, (3) 98729-76287, (4) 98729-77287 in his name. The respondent gave first three numbers i.e. (1) 98729-74287, (2) 98729-75287, (3) 98729-76287 to his three sons, who are practicing advocates and he himself is using the fourth no.98729-74287. The appellant raised an excessive bill dated 27.04.2009 for Rs.10.599/- against connection no.98729-76287 and a settlement was arrived and Rs.9000/- which the respondent paid to the appellant and the said number was closed. Later on, the appellant barred out-going and incoming facility of other three numbers also and the matter was solved even on contacting the officials of the appellant. It was prayed that the appellant be directed to restore the facilities on the above said numbers and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and agony, Rs.50,000/- for damage to reputation and besides Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
36. The complaint was contested by the appellant by filing written reply.
37. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint to the extent that the appellant should restore all the facilities of telephone nos.98729-74287, 98729-75287 and 98729-77287 on the same terms and conditions, subject to the condition that all the up-to- date dues against those telephone numbers are paid, within 7 days from First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 11 receipt of copy of order. Rs.5000/- were awarded for deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
38. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1775 of 2009 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Shiv Kumar), is accepted and the impugned order dated 04.08.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
39. The appellant In F.A. No.1775 of 2009 had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.402 of 2010:-
40. Similarly, in F.A. No.402 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. Vs Narinder Chauhan & Anr.), Sh. Narinder Chauhan-respondent no.1/complainant got the mobile connection no.97791-20709, having Sim Card No.8991020208103386238-F of Airtel from respondent no.2 for Rs.550/-
which included Rs.250/- as security. The said connection was post-paid with internet facility. The respondent no.1 surrendered the said Sim card and connection on 10.09.2008 to respondent no.2 and paid Rs.1070/- in cash as well as gave ID proof. Respondent no.2 issued receipt no.4921528 dated 10.09.2008 with the assurance that the same will be deposited with the appellant. However, on 06.03.2009, respondent no.1 received a notice, asking him to pay Rs.1070/- as balance. Respondent no.1 requested as well as issued notice to respondent no.2 to deposit the said Sim card and amount with the company immediately, but to no effect. Rather, respondent no.1 received a bill for Rs.1126.97 to be paid till 14.04.2009 which he was not liable to pay. A prayer for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs.5000/- was made.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 12
41. The complaint was contested by the appellant by filing written reply.
42. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the demand raised by the appellant after 10.09.2008 and awarded Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
43. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.402 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Narinder Chauhan & Anr.), is accepted and the impugned order dated 09.11.2009 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
44. The appellant In F.A. No.402 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs.6000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.403 of 2010:-
45. Likewise, in F.A. No.403 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar & Anr.), Sh. Parmod Kumar, respondent no.1/complainant was having a mobile telephone connection of Airtel Company bearing no.98762-59104. On 15.10.2009, the connection was disconnected by the appellants without any cause or prior notice. On approaching appellant no.2, it refused to restore the connection and also could not explain the reason for disconnection. Earlier also on 26.04.2005, the said connection was disconnected without any cause and respondent no.1 filed complaint no.74/04.05.2005 which was allowed on 08.11.2005 and restoration of the connection no.98762-59104 was ordered along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-, with further directions not First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 13 to disconnect the above said mobile connection for dues of another mobile phone connection no.98151-51503. It was prayed that the appellants be directed to restore the mobile connection no.98762-59104 and pay Rs.1000/- per day as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
46. Despite appearance, the appellants failed to file written reply despite availing sufficient opportunities before the District Forum and, as such, their defence was struck off vide order dated 21.01.2010. Respondent no.2 was exparte before the District Forum.
47. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent no.1, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to put the mobile connection of respondent no.1 in its original/previous position and pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.
48. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.403 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar & Anr.), is accepted and the impugned order dated 05.02.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
49. The appellants In F.A. No.403 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal and another sum of Rs.30,000/- vide receipt dated 31.05.2010 in compliance of the order dated 03.05.2010. Both these amounts with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. F.A. No.702 of 2010:-
50. Similarly, in F.A. No.702 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors. Vs Baljit Sigh), Sh. Baljit Singh, respondent/complainant was having postpaid mobile connection no.98729-72019. Due to non-deposit of dues of 4/5 months, the connection was disconnected. On approaching the First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 14 appellants, it was told that Rs.11,500/- were due towards the respondent and the connection will be restored only after making payment of Rs.11,500/-. Respondent deposit the said amount vide receipt dated 20.08.2008. The appellants also got deposited Rs.800/- from the respondent, on the pretext that new Sim card. However, the said Sim card was not working. On further inquiry, it came to notice of the respondent that his mobile connection no.98729-72016 was given by the appellants to one Jujhar Singh of Nawan Shahr. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, it was prayed that the appellants be directed to restore the mobile connection of the respondent and to refund of Rs.12,300/- and compensation of Rs.80,000/-.
51. Despite appearance, appellants failed to file written reply despite availing sufficient opportunities before the District Forum and, as such, their defence was struck off vide order dated 20.12.2009
52. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint, directing the appellants to restore the mobile connection no.98729-72019 of the respondent, refund Rs.12,300/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses.
53. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.702 of 2010 (M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors. Vs Baljit Singh), is accepted and the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
54. The appellants In F.A. No.702 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs.9205/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.2 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 15F.A. No.1166 of 2010:-
55. Likewise, in F.A. No.1166 of 2010 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
& Anr. Vs Jagjit Singh), Sh. Jagjit Singh, respondent/complainant is holder of mobile connections no.94170-78780 since 2002 and no.94173-94174 since 2009 (purchased in BID). Near Diwali, 2009, appellants offered call rate @ Rs.0.20 paise on BSNL to BSNL, if a consumer retained his balance of Rs.5000/-. Respondent immediately recharged his mobile connection no.94170-78780 for Rs.5500/- and amount of Rs.7000/- was debited in his account, but call rate @ Rs.20 paisa per min. remained only for 5-7 days and the appellants changed the call rate from 20 paisa to 49 paisa without giving any notice to the respondent, at a time when the balance was Rs.6800/- in his account. The other grievances of the respondent were that despite registering his mobile number for 'do not call' since long, he continued to receive 10 to 20 unwanted SMSs and there was a complaint of 'call break down' after few seconds. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellants, Rs.70,000/- as compensation and Rs.5500/- as litigation costs were prayed.
56. The complaint was contested by the appellants by filing written reply.
57. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum allowed the complaint with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses and directed the appellants to provide the scheme to the respondent qua charging Rs.0.20 paise per min. from BSNL to BSNL on his mobile phone and to refund the extra amount charges, to stop sending unwanted SMSs and in case after expiry of 30 days from receipt of copy of order, the respondent again received unwanted call or SMS, the appellants shall be liable to pay Rs.100/- per unwanted call or SMS. The appellants were further directed to improve their network in the area and to provide better services.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 16
58. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.1166 of 2010 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. Vs Jagjit Singh), is accepted and the impugned order dated 22.03.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
59. The appellants In F.A. No.1166 of 2010 had deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.80 of 2011:-
60. Similarly, in F.A. No.80 of 2011 (Idea Cellular Limited Vs Satish Kumar), Sh. Satish Kumar, respondent/complainant is holder of postpaid mobile connection no.98555-54555 and Sim No.8991149 00002772695 of the appellant vide account no.51350796. On 17.05.2010, the appellant changed the connection number from 9855-54555 to 98555-40555 without any request of the respondent. Respondent made complaint dated 17.05.2010 and sent e-mail on 18.05.2010, followed by legal notice dated 09.06.2010 requesting the appellant to restore the previous mobile connection number, but the same was not restored. It was prayed that previous mobile connection no.98555-54555 may be restored and compensation of Rs.80,000/- be awarded.
61. The complaint was contested by the appellant by filing written reply.
62. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum ordered the appellant to give back the mobile no.98555-54555 to the respondent and pay Rs.10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses.
First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 17
63. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.80 of 2011 (Idea Cellular Limited Vs Satish Kumar), is accepted and the impugned order dated 26.11.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
64. The appellant In F.A. No.80 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.6000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.935 of 2011:-
65. Likewise, in F.A. No.935 of 2011 (M/s Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Malkit Singh), Sh. Malkit Singh, respondent/complainant purchased a prepaid mobile connection no.98151-81206 from the authorized dealer of the appellant, namely Macro Communication, Jaitu. After few months of purchase, the outgoing and incoming call facility of the said number was withdrawn by the appellant, without giving any information to the respondent and the same were not restored by the appellant despite repeated requests and visits of the respondent. Later on, on inquiry it came to notice of respondent that the said number was allotted by the appellant to some other person. Alleging deficiency in service, it was prayed that the appellant may be directed to restore the call facilities of connection no.98151-81206 and pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- and costs of complaint.
66. Despite appearance, the appellant failed to file written reply despite availing sufficient opportunities before the District Forum and its defence was struck off vide order dated 14.01.2011.
67. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint, directing the appellant to restore the outgoing First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 18 and incoming call facility on mobile no.98151-81206 and pay Rs.2000/- within one month, failing which this amount was to carry interest @ 9% p.a.
68. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.935 of 2011 (M/s Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Malkit Singh), is accepted and the impugned order dated 31.01.2011 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
69. The appellant In F.A. No.935 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.1000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
F.A. No.936 of 2011:-
70. Similarly, in F.A. No.936 of 2011 (M/s Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.), Sh. Rajesh Kumar, respondent no.1/complainant is subscriber of the appellant under postpaid connection no.98760-73026 for the last six years. Respondent no.1 applied for change of the said connection from postpaid to prepaid and submitted necessary documents with respondent no.2 and the connection was converted to prepaid on 01.08.2010. However, on 06.08.2010, the connection was disconnected without any notice or intimation to respondent no.1, which was not restored despite making complaint and issuing legal notice dated 11.08.2010 by respondent no.1. It was prayed that that connection no.98760- 73026 be restored and compensation of Rs.80,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/- may be awarded.
71. The complaint was contested by the appellant by filing written reply. Respondent no.2 was exparte before the District Forum.
72. After going the material and documents placed on file and hearing the counsel for parties, the District Forum directed the appellant and First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 19 respondent no.2 to restore the connection no.98760-73026 forthwith and pay Rs.10,000/- as consolidated amount of compensation.
73. In view of the reasons and discussion held in F.A. No.1027 of 2009 (Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Gurpal Singh), the appeal i.e. F.A. No.936 of 2011 (M/s Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.), is accepted and the impugned order dated 23.12.2010 under appeal passed by the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the respondent no.1/complainant is dismissed. No order as to costs.
74. The appellant In F.A. No.936 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the said appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
75. The arguments in all the appeals were heard on 27.01.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
76. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
77. Copy of the order placed in the following cases:-
2. F.A. No.1172 of 2009 Spice Communication Limited Vs Gurinder Kaur & Anr.
3. F.A. No.1298 of 2009 Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Rajiv Kumar & Anr.
4. F.A. No.1529 of 2009 Principal General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs Capt. Amarjit Singh.
5. F.A. No.1775 of 2009 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Shiv Kumar
6. F.A. No.402 of 2010 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited Vs Narinder Chauhan & Anr.
7. F.A. No.403 of 2010 M/s Bharti Airtel Limited & Anr. Vs Parmod Kumar & Anr.
8. F.A. No.702 of 2010 Bharti Airtel Limited & Ors. Vs Baljit Singh
9. F.A. No.1166 of 2010 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr.
Vs Jagjit Singh
10. F.A. No.80 of 2010 Idea Cellular Limited Vs Satish Kumar First Appeal No.1027 of 2009 20
11. F.A. No.935 of 2011 Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Malkiat Singh
12. F.A. No.936 of 2011 Bharti Televentures Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar & Anr.
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Member (Baldev Singh Sekhon) Member January 31, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)