ARUN KUMAR KAUSHAL Vs. SUNIL BHARTI MITTAL, BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Arun Kumar Kaushal
Sunil Bharti Mittal, Bharti Airtel Limited
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 5.12.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 616 of 2008.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the complainant had taken mobile connection from the OPs bearing No.9878034440 and he received a bill dated 18.11.2007 for Rs.1852.76 paise, which was duly paid by the complainant vide cheque No.666051, dated 28.11.2007 drawn on State Bank of India, Sector 7 -C, Chandigarh. The outgoing services of the mobile connection of the complainant was subsequently barred for non -payment of the aforesaid bill and after great pursuasion, the OPs realized their mistake and restored the services. The OPs issued bill dated 18.12.2007 for an amount of Rs.1903.11paise to the complainant. The complainant asked the OPs to issue the details of the calls, which was accordingly issued by the OPs. In the outgoing ISD column at Serial No.14 showed that on 30.11.2007 a call was made at 18:16:05 at telephone No. 61411559051, showing the duration of 01:12:32, for which an amount of Rs.467.20paise was charged by the OPs and the next call on the same date was also made at 18:17:47 at the same telephone number, the duration of which was 00:05.44, for which an amount of Rs.38.40 paise was charged and the entries in the bills were totally false, baseless and incorrect. Since the OPs had wrongly charged from the complainant at serial No.14 in the ISD outgoing column, the bill in question was not paid in time under protest. A legal notice dated 11.1.2008 was also served upon the OPs but no fruitful response was given from their side. Hence, the complaint was filed.
(3.) REPLY was filed by the OPs and pleaded that since the OPs had computerized system, therefore, there was no chance of any error. It was pleaded that on 15.12.2007 the outgoing services to the number of the complainant was barred as his billed as well as unbilled usage had exceeded his credit limit of Rs.3,500/ -. The payment was made by the complainant and the concerned representative did not report it to the OP and when it come to their knowledge, the outgoing calls to his mobile number were instantly restored on 18.12.2008. It was also pleaded by the OPs that the complainant had made an ISD call to telephone No. 61411559051 and Rs.467.20 paise were charged as per the records, the second call was made by putting the first call on hold which had resulted in the over lapping of the call timings. Due to computerized system, the complainant had rightly been billed as per the usage. All other material allegation leveled by the complainant in the complaint were controverted and pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.