As per the report by Bar and Bench states that earlier this week, the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) has upheld an INR of 5 lakh penalty which has been imposed on Bharti Airtel Limited. This fine was sanctioned for allegedly harassing a customer with repeated phone calls and disconnecting his service over unpaid dues which had actually already been settled.
The case has shed light on important problems WRT telecom behemoth's service policies which was first decided upon by a district consumer forum. While Airtel was represented by advocates KG Gopalkrishnan and Nisha Mohandas, the client and his legal heir were represented by the Law Firm Legal Knights respectively.
Customer harassment instance at Airtel: The Story
A client named Jasmeet Singh Puri, has been availing telephone and internet services from Airtel, wherein, he sent a Rs 4,995 check in March 2013. Even while the check was credited to Airtel's account, the business stated that there wasn't enough money to cover the dishonoured cheque.0
Post this incident, Airtel started calling Puri nonstop to inquire about the outstanding balance and also cut off his connection in May 2013. Additionally, the business even issued a legal notice for an additional Rs 7,549 in payment.
Furthermore, Puri even attempted to submit bank statements as evidence of payment, but Airtel kept on harassing her. Due to this, Puri had no other alternatives than to file a consumer complaint. The district consumer forum ruled out that the aforementioned telecom service provider had acted very harshly with its customer and hence imposed a Rs 5 lakh punitive compensation penalty on Airtel. As a result, the paid sum was divided across two entities, with Puri receiving payment of Rs 3 lakh while the State Consumer Welfare Fund receiving Rs 2 lakh.
The Court's Decision and Airtel's Appeal
Airtel filed an appeal with the Delhi SCDRC challenging this ruling. Nevertheless, on July 1, 2024, the appeal was rejected by Judicial Member Pinki and State Commission President Dr. Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal. The Commission took note of Airtel's carelessness and Puri's unwarranted harassment. It was noted that Airtel had not offered sufficient service, and there was no proof that the business had looked into Puri's concerns or tried to resolve the problem.
"It is evident that the Appellant (Airtel) failed to provide the Respondent no 1 with adequate service, which resulted in the Respondent suffering consequences. Hence, with this, the shortcoming on the part of the Petitioner is established. Subsequently, we do not perceive any flaw in the District Commission's decision,” the Commission highlighted in its ruling. So to end, several important parameters were stressed upon by the SCDRC in its decision making be it negligence, absence of investigation, persistent harassment, or be it lack of evidence.
