Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Sh. Laxman Singh. vs Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. on 25 March, 2021

     H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
                COMMISSION SHIMLA
                                                       First Appeal No.    : 301/2019
                                                       Date of Presentation: 05.09.2019
                                                       Order Reserved on : 10.03.2021
                                                       Date of Order        : 25.03.2021
                                                                                           ......

Shri Laxman Singh S/O Shri Mohan Singh, R/O village
Dawardu, P.O. Drang, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi, HP.

                                                               ........Appellant/Complainant.
                                            Versus

1. Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela
        Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070 through
        its C.E.O.
2. Airtel Bank Ltd. C/O Bharti Airtel Limited, Bharti
        Crescent, I, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II,
        New Delhi-110070 through its C.E.O.
3. Airtel Local Office, Mandi at Thanehra Bazar, Mandi Town,
        District Mandi, HP through its Incharge.
                     ..Respondents No.1 to 3/Opposite parties No.1 to 3.


4. M/S Rao Gas Service, Jail Road, Mandi, now New Office at
        Thanehra Muhalla, Mandi Town, District Mandi, HP.

                                           ..Respondent No.4/Opposite party No.4.


Coram
Hon'ble Ms. Sunita Sharma, Presiding Member
Hon'ble Mr. R.K.Verma, Judicial Member

Whether approved for reporting?1
For Appellant       :     Mr. Jia Lal vice Mr.A.C.Verma Advocate.
For Respondents No.1 to3: Sh.H.S.Rangra, Advocate.
For respondent No.4 :     Already ex-parte.




1
    Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
                   Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.
                             F.A. No.301/2019

Ms.Sunita Sharma, Presiding Member:

O R D E R :

-

1. Present appeal is filed against order dated 05.08.2019 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum/Commission, Mandi, in consumer complaint No.182/2018 titled Laxman Singh Versus Bharti Airtel Limited & Others.

Brief facts of consumer complaint:

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is a customer/consumer of the opposite party No.4 being the holder of domestic LPG connection No.R-25688. He had applied and was receiving subsidy on LPG cylinders/refills in his savings bank account No.30787970515 maintained by State Bank of India, Katipari Branch, District Mandi (SBI).

Lastly, subsidy amount of Rs.325.58/- was transferred to the SBI account on 17.04.2017. He is also a consumer of opposite parties No.1 & 3 since he is using their mobile services vide cell No.98164- 96788. In last quarter of the year 2017, the opposite parties without his consent and permission suddenly opened an account with the opposite party No.2 in his name. LPG subsidy amount was being transferred by the opposite parties of their own in the account opened with the opposite party No.2. To his great surprise, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 without seeking his option and consent opened a Paytm (Airtel Payments Bank Savings Account) in his name. Certain 2 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

transactions pertaining to LPG subsidy have been made in the said account by the opposite party No.4. As per the message dated 17.09.2018 received by him, Rs.1583.96/- were lying in balance in Paytm account. On 25.09.2018, he received a call on his Airtel number from phone No.91-62056-55416. An inquiry was made regarding use of Airtel phone. It was informed that verification is being conducted by the head office of Airtel. He was asked to disclose his Aadhar Card number. It was replied that the number of said card has already been given by him in the office at Mandi (OP No.3). He was then asked to divulge his date of birth, which was conveyed bonafidely. On the next day i.e. 26.09.2018, in the forenoon, he again received a call from the aforesaid number. It was remarked that the date of birth told by him is not matching. He informed the caller that the date of birth was disclosed yesterday. On the same day i.e. 26.09.2018, at 12.06 p.m., message regarding certain OTP (One Time Password) was received. It was intimated that through the OTP, he can access Paytm wallet. He had never applied for Paytm account/wallet. Smelling some foul play, he visited the opposite party No.3. The latter did not listen to him properly and he was put off. Message dated 28.07.2018 was also received from Airtel regarding non updation of personal details in Paytm account. On 29.09.2018, payments of Rs.1,500/- and Rs.80/- were made from the Paytm account 3 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

through online debit card to PAYU*OXIGEN SERVICES I GURGAON. Money was transferred by the opposite parties of their own from the Paytm account un-authorizedly. No transaction/payment was ever made by him. He has been harassed and suffered monetary loss. The opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice and are/were deficient in rendering the service. Hence, this complaint before learned District Commission below.

3. The complaint has been opposed by the opposite parties by filing separate replies. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 in their joint reply, have taken preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. It is an abuse of the process of law. The complainant has no cause of action. He has concealed material facts from the Forum and is least concerned with sanctity/dignity of judicial process. Facts have been misrepresented. The complainant is guilty of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. The complaint is not maintainable. It is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter. The complainant is not a „consumer‟. He opened account No.98164- 96788 with them of his own accord and free volition as well as nominated his wife Smt. Shanta as a nominee. Since the date of opening the account, the complainant is actively using the same. Various transactions including debit transactions were made by him. All 4 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

withdrawal/ debit transactions were pre-validated by the complainant by way of OTP/MPIN (Mobile Personal Identification Number). Current status of the account is active. On merits, it has been denied for want of knowledge that the complainant is LPG consumer of the opposite party No.4, subsidy used to be deposited in his SBI account and he is using Airtel mobile phone No.98164-96788. However, it has been denied that Paytm account was opened without his knowledge and consent. LPG subsidy was not transferred to Paytm account by them of their own. Actually, the complainant voluntarily opened the account in question with his mobile phone No.98164-96788 on 08.06.2017. He nominated his wife as a nominee. The account was opened with 100 FCI mobility verification flow. The company (Airtel) is subject to and governed by various laws and regulations issued by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) concerning the opening and maintenance of payments bank accounts of its customers. For opening a bank account with the company, prospective customer can approach the bank retailers. Retailers have been instructed and trained to inform the prospective customers in an up-front manner and seek their consent for opening a savings bank account with the company. Prospective customers are also informed and made aware of the choice to have direct benefit transfers in their bank 5 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

accounts with ease of cash withdrawal at touch points. There is an option to opt out of the direct benefit transfer. Instructions are applicable to all types of customers approaching the access points. Retailers are common for Bharti Airtel Ltd. (telecommunication) and Airtel Payments Bank (Paytm) for mobile KYC (Know Your Customer) re- verification. All customers are required to provide details such as nomination, PAN card, occupation, annual income etc. in order to open a bank account with the company. On completion of above stated formalities, bank account gets opened. Subsequent to opening of account, company sends communication to the customer via SMS (Short Message Service). Opening of bank account in the name of a customer is conveyed by SMS. Company also gives debit/credit transaction alerts via SMS on free of cost basis. In addition, automated calls (including in vernacular language) are made to the customers when direct benefit transfers take place in their accounts. Paytm is a distinct and separate entity. They (OPs No.1 to 3) have no connection with it. Paytm has not been arrayed as a party to the complaint . As per normal practice, all debit transactions require pre-validation by the customer through OTP or MPIN. All the transactions were made by the complainant. Rs.1,580/- were not wrongly debited from his account as alleged. Neither the complainant has been harassed nor suffered any loss. There is/was no 6 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.

4. Opposite party No.4 in its separate reply has admitted that the complainant is a customer. His LPG consumer number is R-25688. Previously, subsidy amount used to be credited to SBI account of the complainant. Now, the amount of subsidy is credited to Airtel Payments Bank of the complainant. NPCI (National Payments Corporation of India) report is enclosed. The opposite party No.4 had no role to play in the opening of Airtel Bank account or the transactions in dispute.

5. Complainant filed rejoinder and reasserted allegations mentioned in consumer complaint.

6. The parties have led evidence by way of affidavits in support of their respective claims and also filed documentary evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant. None appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 to address arguments despite availing sufficient opportunities. Respondent No.4 is already ex-parte. We have also perused entire record carefully.

8. Following points arise for determination in present appeal.

1. Whether appeal filed by appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal?

7

Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

2. Final order.

Findings upon point No.1 with reasons:

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant/complainant has been was receiving subsidy on LPG cylinders/refills in his saving bank account No.30787970515 maintained by him with State Bank of India, Katipari Branch, District Mandi, H.P. It is further argued that appellant is also a consumer of opposite parties No.1 & 3 as he is using their mobile services vide mobile No.98164- 96788. It is also argued that respondents No.1 to

3 on their own opened Airtel Payments bank account with the respondent No.2 without the consent and permission of the appellant and LPG subsidy was being transferred to the said account on their own. He further argues that certain transactions have been made in the said account by the respondents w.e.f. 08.06.2017 till 29.09.2018 by using his this account. No other ground or point raised by the appellant in the instant case.

10. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the appellant has made various transactions from Airtel Payments bank as is evident from document, Annexure OP.1, which also shows that transaction of Rs.964.80p was made on 14.12.2017 through Airtel Payments bank account to his SBI account. We are unable to accept the plea of the appellant that he was 8 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

never willing to open any e-payment account with opposite party No.2, because it is settled that bank account cannot be opened without the consent of the customer and various codal formalities are required to be completed by the customer by submitting documents and details in order to open a bank account. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that the complainant voluntarily opened the account in question with his mobile phone No.98164-96788 on 08.06.2017 by depositing a sum of Rs.100/- and he proposed his wife Smt. Shanta as a nominee in the said account.

11. It is also evident from the record that respondents No.1 to 3 used to intimate the complainant about each transaction made by him through SMS on his registered mobile number, which is clear from the document Annexure OP-1 that several transactions have been made by the complainant from the date of opening of the said account w.e.f.. 08.06.2017 till 01.10.2018. It is settled that withdrawal/debit transactions cannot be made OTP/MPIN (Mobile Personal Identification Number) of the customer. For receiving LPG subsidy, a consumer gets link for his bank account with NPCI (National Payments Corporation of India) and the copy of report of NPCI is placed on record. The said report unfolds that earlier the complainant linked his SBI account to receive LPG subsidy amount and subsequently, he linked his Airtel Payments bank account to receive the benefit 9 Laxman Singh Vs. Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors.

of subsidy. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the disputed account in question was opened by the appellant on his own and after opening the said account, various transactions had been done by him from time to time. He never lodged any complaint with regard to these transactions with Cyber cell also, if the said transactions were not made by him. Thus, no deficiency in service or unfair trade can be attributed to the respondents and as such we find no merit in the appeal. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No.2: Final Order

12. In view of findings upon point No.1 above, appeal filed by appellant is dismissed. Order of learned District Commission is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission.

13. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Certified copy of order be sent to learned District Forum/Commission forthwith for information and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. F.A.No.301/2019 is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.

Sunita Sharma Presiding Member R.K.Verma Judicial Member 25.03.2021 Manoj 10