State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel Ltd. vs Sandesh J Chouta on 19 October, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/1667/2013 ( Date of Filing : 13 Nov 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/10/2013 in Case No. CC/1497/2012 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Registered Headquarters, Bharti Cresent, No. 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasanth Kuni, New Delhi 110070 . 2. Bharti Airtel Ltd. Corporate Office, No. 55, Divya Sree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore 560028 Rep. by its Authorised Personnel . ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Sandesh J Chouta Aged about 38 years, S/o. Justice T.J. Chouta (Retd.), R/at No. 385, 5th Main Road, 11th Cross, RMV 2nd Stage, Bangalore 560094 . ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/1729/2013 ( Date of Filing : 23 Nov 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 11/10/2013 in Case No. CC/1497/2012 of District Bangalore 2nd Additional) 1. Sandesh S. Chouta S/o. Justice TJ Chouta(Rtd), R/at. No.385, 5th Main Road, 11th Cross, R.M.V 2nd Stage, Bangalore - 560 094 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. .Bharti Airtel Limited Registered Headquarters, Bharti Cresent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110 070 Rep. by Chairman & MD, Mr. Sunil Bharti Mittal 2. Bharti Airtel Limited Corporate Office Bharti Airtel Limited, 55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bangalore - 560 029 Represented by its Authorized Personnel ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 19 Oct 2024 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (ADDL. BENCH) DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 PRESENT MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1667/2013 & 1729/2013 Appeal No.1667/2013 1. Bharti Airtel Limited, Registered Headquarters, Bharti Cresent, No.1, Nelson, Mandela Road, Vasanth Kuni, New Delhi - 110 070. .....Appellant/s 2. Bharti Airtel Limited, Cororate Office, No.55, DivyaSree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru - 560028. Rep. By its Authorized Personnel. V/s Sandesh J Chouta, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Justice T.J. Chouta. R/at No.385, 5th Main Road, 11th Cross, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560094. (By. Sri. Ismail M. Musuba, Advo.) .....Respondent/s Appeal No.1729/2013 Sandesh J Chouta, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Justice T.J. Chouta. R/at No.385, 5th Main Road, 11th Cross, RMV 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560094. (By. Sri. Ismail M. Musuba, Advo.) .....Appellant/s V/s 1. Bharti Airtel Limited, Registered Headquarters, Bharti Cresent, No.1, Nelson, Mandela Road, Vasanth Kuni, New Delhi - 110 070. 2. Bharti Airtel Limited, Cororate Office, No.55, DivyaSree Towers, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru - 560028. Rep. By its Authorized Personnel. ...Respondent/s O R D E R
BY SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER The appeals are filed by the both Complainant and Opposite Party being aggrieved by the order dated 11.10.2013 passed in CC.No.1497/2012 on the file of II Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru and prays to set aside the order and to allow the appeal in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant was subscriber of opposite party and he was activated under the I-Phone 2000 scheme. During the trip to Spain in may 2012, the complainant had activated International Roaming(IR) facilities on his mobile phone. During his stay in Spain, the unbilled as was communicated on 08.05.2012 was Rs.35,731/-. However, the final bill for sum of Rs.59,349/- was raised for the said month and when the complainant complaining that without he having used phone, there was excessive bill and also he has credit limit of Rs.12,000/- which was not considered by the opposite party and billing was made hence the complaint sought for waving of the bill amount along with compensation.
3. After service of notice, the opposite party appeared and filed version and admitted that complainant is his customer and has availed services of International Roaming(IR) and 3g services. Further contended that the complainant was provided with all relevant information in relation to the applicable charges and also informed that all the charges and tariff is available in their website. Further contended that the complainant was platinum customers and he was subscriber more than 10 years and any such inconvenience to the customers in any foreign location and because of it, it was not disconnected. Further, the complainant had accessed internet from the network of Armenica, Telfonica who are the service providers in Spain from 2.5.2012 to 8.05.2012 and therefore, the charges were valid. Even though the complainant has made a part payment of the bill, that is never considered as sufficient payment of the bill and because of it the opposite party was entitled to claim that amount.
4. After trial, the District Commission has allowed the complaint.
5. Being aggrieved by the said order, both complainant and Opposite Parties has preferred this appeal on various grounds.
6. Heard from respondent in A/1667/2013. Inspite of sufficient opportunities granted, appellant has not submitted his arguments.
7. Perused the appeal memo, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the complainant is the platinum customer and subscriber for more than 10 years. It is also not in dispute that he has availed International Roaming and 3g services for his mobile. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has made a part payment of Rs.5,033k. The allegation of the complainant is that when he was in Spain on 8.5.2012, the Opposite Parties has sent sms and it was seen by the respondent on 10.05.2012 in which the Opposite Parties informed that "your approximate unbilled usage as on 8.5.2012 is Rs.35,731/-. This amount includes the roaming usage." Hence, the complainant has immediately sent a E-mail to the Opposite Parties to disconnect the services and also switched off his mobile. Moreover, the credit limit was only Rs.12,000/-. After returning to the Bengaluru, the complainant contacted the Opposite Parties on 20.05.2012 and Opposite Parties informed to the complainant that outstanding due was Rs.59,349/- and started to threat by messaging and calling on daily basis demanding payment of disputed bill amount
8. Per contra, the Opposite Parties before the District Commission contended that the complainant had accessed internet from the network of Armenica, Telfonica operator from 2.5.2012 to 8.5.2012 and the charges were valid. The respondent was using a smart phone which will have various inbuilt applications which are an individual could have downloaded from the internet. The deactivation of the data services is always done manually by accessing in the settings.
9. Perused the appeal memo and the order passed by the District Commission, we noticed that the usage of the service availed by the complainant is till 08.05.2018 only subsequent to that there is not usage of facility of internet. Complainant has switched off his mobile because of excessive bill. If there has been no usage of service of the appellant it is unreasonable for the bill to exceed the earlier bill amount. Even if we consider a slight increase, the Opposite Parties demand for an amount of Rs.59,340/- which is excessive and unjustified. Opposite Parties have contended that complainant has accessed the internet from the network of Armenica, Telfonica operators and thus charges were valid. However, the Opposite Parties have not produced any document to show that how the approximate bill of Rs.35,731/- escalated into an excessive amount of Rs.59,349/- since the complainant has disputed the excess bill, then burden of proof shifted on the Opposite Parties to prove the same. Moreover, perused the order sheet, we noticed that the opposite party is continuously absent and not argued the matter and convinced this commission that the bill demanded from the complainant is valid and the complainant is liable to pay the same.
10. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the District Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, O R D E R The appeal is dismissed.
The amount deposited in A/1667/2013 shall be transmitted to the concerned District Consumer Commission to pay the same to the complainant.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Consumer Commission.
(Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member VS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER