The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has upheld the order of a district forum here imposing Rs 5 lakh fine on telecom company Bharti Aitrel Ltd for humiliating and har♉assing a customer, besides disconnecting his services, despite the payment of dues.
The commission comprising President Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and judicial member Pinki was hearing Airtel's appeal against t🔯he district forum imposing the "punitive compensation", of which Rs 3 lakh was to be deposited with the state consumer welfare fund.
The remaining Rs 2 lakh had to be provided to the complainant or consumer for the "ex🐲treme and deliberate insult, humiliation, mental agony, harassment, loss of benefit of services due to wrongful disconnectꦆion, and litigation expenses," the forum had directed.
Noting the facts of the case, the commission said that the customer had issued a cheque for installing internet and♋🎃 landline services but despite the cheque being credited, the customer started receiving calls about the cheque being dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
In an order dated July 1, it said Airtel did not provide any evidence to 𒊎show that after receiving the consumer's complaint they conducted an inquiry.
"Additionally, the appellant (Airtel) failed to take concrete steps to stop the calls even after receiving complaints from him (the customer)," the commis🌸sion said, adding that despite receiving emails from the customer showing the details that the cheque was credited, the company disconnected the services and threatened the customer to pay the dues or face legal action.
"Consequently, it cannot be d🎃enied that the appellant wasꦿ not only negligent in providing its services but was also using its position to harass Respondent No. 1 (the customer)," the commission said.
"It is, therefore, clear that the appellant fai🌌led to provide adequate service, which resulted in the respondent suffering consequences. As a result, the deficiency on the part of the appellant stands proven," it added.
The commi♔ssion said there was no infirmity in the district consumer forum's judgment.
