The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld a Rs 5 lakh penalty imposed on Airtel for harassing a customer with phone calls and disconnecting his services over unpaid dues, despite the amount having been duly paid.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld a Rs 5 lakh penalty imposed on Airtel for harassing a customer with persistent phone calls and disconnecting services over allegedly unpaid dues, despite the payment being made.
The SCDRC’s decision was delivered by a bench comprising State Commission President Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki. They observed that Airtel was not only negligent in providing its services but had also harassed their client using its position.
“It is, therefore, clear that the Appellant (Airtel) failed to provide adequate service to the Respondent no.1, which resulted in the Respondent suffering consequences. As a result, the deficiency on the part of the Appellant stands proved. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the District Commission,”
-the Delhi SCDRC noted in its July 1 order.
The commission upheld the fine initially imposed on Airtel by a district consumer forum on September 4, 2014, for deficiency of service. The customer had purchased internet and landline services from Airtel and, in March 2013, handed over a cheque of Rs 4,995 to cover the dues for these services.
Airtel claimed that this cheque was dishonoured due to insufficient funds and began to relentlessly call the customer regarding this issue. The customer requested Airtel’s representatives to recheck the status with the bank and later confirmed through bank statements that the amount had been credited to Airtel’s account.
Despite this, Airtel failed to acknowledge the payment and disconnected the customer’s internet services in May 2013. They subsequently sent him a legal notice demanding a payment of Rs 7,549. Frustrated by Airtel’s actions, the customer filed a complaint with the district consumer disputes redressal forum.
The customer reported to the district forum that even after informing Airtel about the payment credit, he continued to receive incessant phone calls and emails from Airtel’s representatives. In September 2014, the district forum ruled that Airtel’s conduct was “crass, bizarre and amounted to motivated misconduct.”
Consequently, the forum ordered Airtel to pay the customer Rs 5 lakhs as punitive compensation, with Rs 3 lakhs to be paid to the customer and Rs 2 lakhs to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Airtel challenged this order before the State Commission, which dismissed the appeal on July 1. The State Commission found that Airtel had neither provided any evidence showing an inquiry into the customer’s complaints and replies nor had they registered any complaint regarding the same. Furthermore, Airtel failed to take any concrete steps to cease calling the customer, even after receiving complaints from him about the harassment.
Thus, the commission dismissed Airtel’s appeal, reinforcing the decision to penalize Airtel for their deficient service and harassment of the customer.
CASE TITLE:
Bharti Airtel Limited V. Jasmeet Singh Puri (Deceased)
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Airtel
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
