Last Updated on July 23, 2020 by Satish Mishra
This post is a case digest of Consumer Complaint against Bharti Airtel wherein the amount for net pack was wrongly deducted from the main mobile account whereas the complainant was having a valid internet pack. District Consumer decided the complaint in favour of complainant and this awarded punitive action to Airtel Bharti. Thereafter company went in appeal before the State Consumer Commission where also the order was upheld and the company was directed to pay the award amount as decided by District forum finding the company Airtel Bharti deficient of services.
Also Read- AIRTEL CONSUMER COMPLAINT CHANDIGARH, PANCHKULA, MOHALI
JUDGEMENT DIGEST ON BHARTI AIRTEL LTD. & ORS. VS SH. ROHIT SHARMA.
- In this case, we will cover and give an overview of the case Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. vs Sh. Rohit Sharma and it will give you a brief yet precise outline regarding all the major facts and issues involved in this particular case which basically revolves around unfair trade practice, Compensation under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
- FACTS OF THE CASE
Court name:- H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA
Petitioner
Rohit Sharma Son of Shri Mahesh Chaudhary R/o Village Dilwan Post Office Diara Tehsil Amb District Una H.P.
Respondent
- Bharti Airtel Limited Block No.11-A SDA Commercial Complex Kasumpti Shimla through its Chief Executive Officer.
(2)Bharti Airtel Limited registered office (A Bharti Enterprise) Bharti Crescent 1 Nelson Mandela Road Vasantkunj Phase-II New Delhi-110070.
(3)Sunil Bharti Mittal Chairman and Group CEO Bharti Airtel Limited Corporate Office 6th Floor interface Building No.7 New Link Road Malad Mumbai West 400064.
Also Read- Where can I complain about airtel?
Date of Presentation: 27.03.2018
Order Reserved on : 26.12.2018
Date of Order : 13.05.2019
Timeline of events
16.07.2015: complainant activated net pack for using internet on his mobile.
03.06.2016: District Forum ordered opposite parties to produce record of Mobile Phone No. w.e.f. 16.07.2015 to 22.07.2015.
The facts of is case are that the complainant filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant is subscriber of prepaid mobile phone No.98052-22288 of opposite parties. It is pleaded that opposite party No.3 is the Chairman and Group CEO of Bharti Enterprise and opposite party No.2 is one of its company which is a licence holder and licence has been granted under Indian Telegraph Act. It is pleaded that on dated 16.07.2015 complainant activated net pack for using internet on his mobile. It is pleaded that opposite parties deducted an amount of Rs.28/-(Twenty eight) from main mobile account of complainant despite the fact that internet pack was still under operation. It is further pleaded that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and committed unfair trade practice. Complainant sought relief to the effect that opposite parties be directed to transfer the amount of Rs.28/- (Twenty eight) in the main mobile account of complainant along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment. In addition complainant sought relief of payment of Rs.300000/- (Three Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. Versus Rohit Sharma (F.A. No.61/2018) lac) as compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment. In addition complainant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- (Fifty thousand) for litigation expenses alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
Also Read- Can TRAI help a consumer complaint against Airtel in resolving individual complaints?
Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that there is alternative remedy to the complainant under Section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act and present consumer complaint is not maintainable. It is further pleaded that complicated questions of laws and facts are involved in the present matter and complainant be relegated to civil court. It is pleaded that complainant was using multiple applications and was downloading data and consumed the data. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.28/- was deducted from complainant’s main account. It is further pleaded that opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service. Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought.
Also Read- Telecom Consumer Complaints Monitoring System
Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.28/- to the complainant along with interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay punitive compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/-. Learned District Forum further ordered opposite parties to pay litigation costs to complainant to the tune of Rs.4000/-.
Also Read- Bharti Airtel Limited Cases Judgments
- 3. Issues in the case
- Whether the opposite parties be directed to transfer the amount of Rs.28/- in the main mobile account of complainant along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment.
- Whether the complainant will get a relief of payment of Rs.300000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment.
- Whether the complainant will get a relief amount for compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- for litigation expenses along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of wrongful deduction till actual payment. Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought.
Also Read- All judgments against Bharti Airtel Limited
- 4. FINDING OF COURT
Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of appellants that complicated question of laws and facts are involved in the present consumer complaint and complainant be relegated to civil court is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on principles of natural justice to relegate the complainant to Civil Court for meager amount of Rs.28/- only. State Commission is of the opinion that present matter could be disposed of properly and effectively under Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order of learned District Forum does not warrant any interference by State Commission is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order of learned District Forum is strictly in accordance with laws and in accordance with proved facts. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in the order of learned District Forum. In view of above stated facts point No.1 is decided accordingly.
Order of learned District Forum is affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.
Also Read- Telecom operator fined Rs10K for deficient service
- 5. CONCLUSION
It is proved on record that on dated 03.06.2016 learned District Forum ordered opposite parties to produce record of Mobile Phone No.98052-22288 w.e.f. 16.07.2015 to 22.07.2015. Thereafter matter was listed before learned District Forum for production of record on behalf of appellants on 22.07.2016, 22.08.2016, 16.09.2016, 01.10.2016, 28.11.2016, 16.12.2016,30.01.2017,31.03.2017, 12.06.2017, 03.08.2017, 13.09.2017 and 31.10.2017 but despite granting several opportunities to the appellants to produce record of mobile phone in question appellants, he does not produce the record before learned District Forum.
Submission on behalf of appellants that learned District Forum has granted excessive punitive compensation to complainant to the tune of Rs.2000/- and on this ground appeal filed by appellants be allowed is decided accordingly. It is proved on record that appellants did not produce the record of mobile phone in question despite several opportunities granted by learned District Forum. Hence State Commission is of the opinion that reasonable punitive compensation has been granted by learned District Forum and it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principles of natural justice to interfere in punitive compensation order of learned District Forum.
Also Read- Chandigarh: Consumer forum directs Bharti Airtel to pay Rs 3 0,000 compensation to Customer
For case specific advice against on consumer complaints against Airtel, one may contact best/top/expert consumer court lawyers in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Baltana Mullanpur etc.
This post is written by Sneha.
More on 99888-17966.
