State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.Bharti Cellular Ltd.,(Airtel)New ... vs Aitha Venugopal 9-1-12. Girmajipet ... on 25 May, 2011
FA BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.1503 of 2008 against C.C.No.98 of 2006 District Forum, Warangal. Between: 1. M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd.,(AIRTEL) Rep.by its Chairman, Regd.Off:Qutab Ambience, H-5/12, Mehranli Road, New Delhi-110 030. 2. The Regional Manager, M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd.,(AIRTEL) Splendid Towers, Opp:Begumpet Police Station, Huda Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016. 3. The Area Manager, M/s.Bharti Cellular Ltd.,(AIRTEL) 3rd Floor, Green Square Plaza, Vaddiraj Complex, Opp: Public Garden, Petrol Bunk, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. Appellants/Opp.Parties And Aitha Venugopal, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged 45 years, Occ:Judicial Employee, O/o.Junior Civil Judge Court, Temporary Near Bus Stand, Parkal, Warangal District. Permanent Address:9-1-12. Girmajipet, Warangal District. Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. A.Venkatesh. Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.V.Gourisankara Rao QUORUM: THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MAY, TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN (Typed to the dictation of Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Member) *** Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.98/2006 on the file of District Forum, Warangal, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The case of the complainants in brief is that he was an employee in judicial departmet working at Parkal and earier worked at Mulugu Town, Warangal. He came to know that one Airtel Mobile No.9866231483 was alleged to have been issued in his name for which he addressed a letter dated 4-9-2004 to opposite party No.2 stating that he has not applied or taken any mobile connection from opposite parties. Thereafter during January when he came to his permanent address, he was shocked to see couple of letters sent by opposite party No.2 including a legal notice stating that the complainant has become a defaulter. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and explained to them but the subordinates of opposite parties and second opposite party have been demanding payment of the amounts. The complainant submitted that he had not applied and taken Airtel Mobile and therefore got issued a legal notice dated 18-1-2006 to opposite parties 1 and 2 to drop all false claims made against him within an unconditional apology and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses for pursing the matter. The said notice was received by the opposite parties but there was no response but the second opposite party again sent letter dated 06-2-2002 demanding the complainant to pay the alleged bill amount which is clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties for withdrawal of bills issued in the name of the complainant for the alleged mobile connection No.9866231483, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and compensation together with costs.
Opposite parties filed reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed as he has not come to the Forum with clean hands and failed to make any case under C.P.Act. They further submitted that when the complainant himself is claiming that he is not the subscriber and consumer of services of opposite parties, he cannot file the present complaint. They submitted that at the request of the complainant by submitting an application form, enclosing therewith a driving license, copy of the bill issued by BSNL and a photograph, mobile service connection was issued on 23-7-2004 with mobile number 9866231483. The complainant had utilized the said services and defaulted payment of legitimate dues and as per the procedure, they sent a legal notice requesting the complainant to make payment. On receipt of the legal notice, the complainant disputed having taken the connection and thereafter their represented contacted the complainant and showed the application form etc. and advised him to make payment and this fact was suppressed by the complainant and he filed the present complaint. Having utilized the services, the complainant is trying to avoid the legitimate dues and therefore their representative once again contacted him and informed him that he is liable to pay the outstanding amounts as he has availed the services, but the complainant on one hand claims that he is not the consumer of the opposite parties and on the other hand is alleging deficiency in service. They submitted that having utilized the services against the said mobile number, the complainant cannot seek cancellation of bills and seek compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A16 and B1 to B4 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to withdraw the bills issued for the alleged mobile connection 9866231483 and further directed the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 7.5% from the date of filing of the complaint till realization together with costs of Rs.500/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties preferred this appeal.
It is the complainants case that he has been receiving bills for an Airtel mobile connection No. 9866231483 said to have been issued in his name, but he contends that he has never applied for any mobile phone. Ex.B1 is the application form filed by the appellant, the photograph on which is denied by the complainant. The appellant also filed driving license as Ex.B2 wherein the address is given, near Bank of India, Warangal. The photograph in the driving license when compared with the photograph in Ex.A16 does not show any similarity.
The complainant even got issued a legal notice vide Ex.A8 for which the opposite party did not conduct any enquiry to ascertain the true facts.
Ex.B2 filed by the appellant refers to driving license No.DLFAFO 36112901989 and the complainant vide Ex.A15 addressed a letter to the R.T.A. seeking details of this driving license and he received a reply that no license was issued in Karimnagar for that driving license number. They submitted that the photostat copy of the driving license produced is a fake and fabricated one.
It is clear from the evidence on record that Ex.B1 and B2 do not belong to the complainant and the complainant is not a subscriber of the Airtel phone 9866231483 and therefore we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party.
However, as the District Forum has already awarded Rs.25,000/- towards damages, awarding of interest again at 7.5% is excessive and we set aside the interest portion while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified setting aside the interest portion only while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/- PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.25-05-2011