Follow Us
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, January 17
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I has awarded a compensation of Rs 8,000 to a city resident after his monthly Airtel digital TV pack was changed and its charges were hiked by Rs 50. Besides, the forum ordered that the complainant be paid Rs 2,000 as litigation cost while directing restoration of his desired pack.
Ankur Soni, a resident of Sector 10, had approached the consumer forum against Airtel DTH Nodal Office, Chandigarh; DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd.), Airtel Centre, Gurugram; and Guru Nanak Radios, Sector 16-D.
On March 6, 2017, Soni had purchased an Airtel digital TV connection from Guru Nanak Radios. On April 8, 2017, he changed his plan to my plan 199 super-1 M pack, which was duly informed to the opposition parties, following which the plan was activated at a monthly rent of Rs 99.
Recently, Soni was going to recharge his account for a monthly sum of Rs 298 as being done in previous months, but he was informed that his current monthly charges were Rs 349. On enquiring about how the charges escalated by Rs 51, Soni was told that he had opted for a pack worth Rs 349 on telephone.
Though Soni denied making any such request, the opposite parties informed him that it was done by the outsourced person and they had not maintained the record.
Hence, Soni filed a consumer complaint and prayed to restore the original plan along with a payment of damages worth Rs 1,00,000 and Rs 50,000 as litigation charges.
In a joint reply, Airtel DTH and DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd.) claimed that the plan was hiked from Rs 298 to Rs 349 as per the complainant’s request.
None from Guru Nanak Radios appeared before the forum and the other two DTH service providers excused themselves from court hearings on July 9 last year.
As per pleadings of the parties, the opposition parties had failed to produce on record any data of a call made by Soni for the change of plan. However, Soni produced a conversation between him as well employees of the opposition parties on October 5, 2017, as evidence.
The forum observed: “It was found that its version has been placed on record, which shows the complainant questioned the switching over/hike of the plan on his request and on this, the employee of the opposite parties said it was done by outsourced persons who were employed by them. No such record was produced that there was any such request. The plan has been changed by the opposite parties for their own personal gain without any request to that effect from the complainant, which amounts to unfair trade practice.” The forum thus directed the opposition parties to immediately restore Soni’s desired package.
5
8
10