Bharti Airtel Held Liable For Unfair Trade Practice For Failure To Provide Promised Validity Of DTH Connection Pack

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-west Delhi bench comprising Suresh Kumar Gupta (President), R.C. Yadav (Member) and Dr. Harshali Kaur (Member) held Airtel liable for failure to provide free DTH connection for the first 2 months, as promised in the package initially. The District Commission directed Airtel to refund the amount and pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Brief Facts: The Complainant recharged his Airtel DTH connection pack and paid Rs. 2994/-. The recharge was for 10 months, with a promise of 2 months free which was stated on the payment page. The Complainant even received confirmation via a call from Airtel and two SMS messages on the same day, stating the monthly charges of Rs. 299/- and that the activated DTH connection pack was named 'Value Prime Kids 12 M ARP'. However, the Complainant encountered issues when he received a message indicating the plan's expiration within 8 months of the purchase, despite having paid for a 10-month subscription. Despite informing Airtel DTH customer care about this discrepancy, there was no response from Airtel. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-VII, South-West Delhi (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against Airtel. In response, Airtel raised several preliminary objections and contended that the UPP (Unique Price Point) 'Value Prime Standard 11M+M' was activated on the Complainant's connection within minutes of the transaction, and there was no deficiency in service on its part. It claimed that on June 15, 2018, the Complainant opted for the 'My Sports 1M' pack and subsequently adjusted the amount paid to the remaining days against the 12-month package. It further argued that the Complainant opted for the 'Infinity Sports 6 M retail ARP' pack, which expired on February 3, 2019. On February 17, 2019, the Complainant again selected a new package. Additionally, it argued that the Complainant was not a consumer and therefore not entitled to claim financial loss before the District Commission. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant recharged on 10.06.2018 and paid Rs. 2994/- for a 10-month period, during which a promise of 2 months free service was made on the payment page. This transaction was further confirmed through a call from Airtel to the Complainant, and subsequent SMS notifications along with the activation of the 'Value Prime Kids 12 M ARP' DTH connection pack. The District Commission held that Airtel didn't provide any substantial evidence to support its arguments. Although the Complainant fulfilled the monetary obligations for the DTH TV connection, the District Commission held that the failure of Airtel to address the raised concerns unequivocally constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Consequently, the District Commission directed Airtel to refund the sum of Rs. 1196/- to the Complainant along with interest calculated at 6% per annum from the date of deposit. Additionally, the District Commission directed Airtel to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant for the mental agony endured by him.Case Title: Suresh Kumar vs Bharti Airtel Limited Click Here To Read/Download Order

Bharti Airtel Held Liable For Unfair Trade Practice For Failure To Provide Promised Validity Of DTH Connection Pack

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Bharti Airtel Held Liable For Unfair Trade Practice For Failure To Provide Promised Validity Of DTH Connection Pack

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers