 "Airtel ordered to pay Rs 5 lakh fine for harassing customer in 2013 case")
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) upheld a Rs 5 lakh penalty earlier this week, imposed on Bharti Airtel Limited for harassing a customer with persistent phone calls and disconnecting his services over alleged unpaid dues, which had already been settled, according to a report by Bar and Bench.
The case, originally ruled upon by a district consumer forum, has highlighted significant issues in the service practices of the telecommunications giant.
Advocates KG Gopalkrishnan and Nisha Mohandas represented Airtel, while the Law Firm Legal Knights represented the customer and his legal heir.
Airtel customer harassment case: Background
The customer, Jasmeet Singh Puri, had availed of internet and landline services from Airtel, for which he issued a cheque of Rs 4,995 in March 2013. Despite the cheque being credited to Airtel's account, the company claimed it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.
Consequently, Airtel began harassing Puri with constant phone calls regarding the unpaid dues and eventually disconnected his services in May 2013. The company even sent a legal notice demanding an increased amount of Rs 7,549.
Despite Puri’s efforts to provide proof of payment through bank statements, Airtel continued its harassment, leading Puri to file a consumer complaint. The district consumer forum found Airtel’s conduct to be severely lacking and ordered the company to pay Rs 5 lakh as punitive compensation. This amount was split, with Rs 3 lakh to be paid to Puri and Rs 2 lakh to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Airtel’s appeal and the court’s ruling
Airtel appealed against this decision to the Delhi SCDRC. However, the State Commission President Dr Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and Judicial Member Pinki dismissed the appeal on July 1, 2024. The Commission noted Airtel’s negligence and the undue harassment caused to Puri. It was observed that Airtel had failed to provide adequate service, and there was no evidence that the company had investigated Puri’s complaints or made any attempts to rectify the issue.
More From This Section
The Commission’s order stated, “It is clear that the Appellant (Airtel) failed to provide adequate service to the Respondent no 1, which resulted in the Respondent suffering consequences. As a result, the deficiency on the part of the Appellant stands proven. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the judgement of the District Commission.”
Key observations made in the Airtel harassment case
The SCDRC highlighted several key points in their decision:
1. Negligence: Airtel showed a lack of due diligence by not acknowledging the payment and continuing to harass the customer.
2. Lack of inquiry: There was no evidence presented by Airtel that any inquiry into the customer’s complaints was conducted.
3. Persistent harassment: Despite being informed multiple times about the payment, Airtel continued to call and email the customer.
4. Failure to provide evidence: Airtel could not provide any proof that they had taken steps to address the issue raised by the customer.