The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) recently upheld a ₹5 lakh penalty imposed on Airtel for harassing a customer with phone calls and disconnecting his services over allegedly unpaid dues, despite the amount having been duly paid [Bharti Airtel Limited V. Jasmeet Singh Puri (Deceased)].
A bench comprising State Commission President Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki noted that Airtel was not only negligent in providing its services but had also used its position to harass the customer.
The Commission upheld the fine imposed on Airtel by a district consumer forum on September 4, 2014, for deficiency of service.
“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 stated in its July 1 order.
The customer had purchased internet and landline services from Airtel. In March 2013, the customer handed over a cheque to pay the amount of ₹4,995 due for these services. However, Airtel claimed that this cheque was dishonoured for lack of sufficient funds and began to constantly call the customer over this issue.
The customer asked 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. However, Airtel failed to acknowledge the receipt of payment from the customer and discontinued his internet services in May 2013 before sending him a legal notice demanding a payment of ₹7,549.
Aggrieved by Airtel’s attitude, the customer filed a consumer complaint before the district consumer disputes redressal forum.
The customer informed the district forum that despite providing proof of payment, he continued to face indiscriminate phone calls and emails from Airtel’s representatives.
In September 2014, the district forum concluded that Airtel’s conduct was crass, bizarre, and amounted to motivated misconduct. It, therefore, ordered Airtel to pay the customer ₹5 lakhs as punitive compensation. Of this amount, ₹3 lakhs was to be paid to the customer, while the remaining ₹2 lakhs was to be paid 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 that they made any inquiry into the customer’s complaints nor had they taken any concrete steps to stop calling the customer, even after receiving complaints about it from him, the Commission noted.
Therefore, it dismissed Airtel’s appeal.
Advocates KG Gopalkrishnan and Nisha Mohandas appeared for Airtel, while Law Firm Legal Knights represented the customer (now deceased) and his legal heir.
