Airtel fined Rs38,500 for shoddy services to Delhi plaintiffs
04 Apr 2015
Bharti Airtel has been directed by a consumer forum to pay Rs38,500 to a Delhi-based couple for not providing them internet TV and broadband services despite accepting the payment.
The Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Justice Rakesh Kapoor, asked the telecom company to pay Rs25,000 compensation, Rs10,000 towards litigation cost and Rs3,500 as refund, to A C Mohan and his wife Alka Mohan.
"It appears to us that exasperated by the 'Devil may care' attitude of the opposite parties (Airtel), the complainants (couple) have approached this forum with the present complaint," the bench said, noting that the company neither replied to the letters sent by the couple, nor did it attend to their grievances.
The court said it appeared that "the opposite parties were grossly deficient in rendering service to the complainants," and noted that the firm failed to explain why it did not refund Rs3,500 immediately to the couple when no service was being provided to them.
"It speaks volumes about the matter in which amounts being collected from the customers without any service being provided to them. We cannot help observing that a number of such customers may not have approached this forum for redressal of their grievances," the forum said.
It also asked the firm to remove the equipment installed at the premises of the couple and ensure that there is no damage to the walls, etc, due to dismantling.
According to the complaint filed before the forum, on 22 August 2012, the couple had paid Rs1,750 to the telecom firm for a combo pack of internet TV cable and broadband connection.
Later, they again paid Rs1,750 to the firm. However, the connection was not activated. The couple wrote several letters to the company but no response came from its side.
The couple then approached the forum, the complaint said, adding that after filing the plea, the company officials offered refund but the complainants refused to accept it.
The telecom firm, however, denied any deficiency of service on its part.
