Bharti Airtel to Pay Rs 38,500 as Penalty to Consumer

Telecom major Bharti Airtel has been directed by a consumer forum to pay Rs 38,500 to a Delhi-based couple for not providing them Internet TV and broadband connection even after receiving the payment.

Central Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, presided by Justice Rakesh Kapoor asked the telecom company to pay the total sum -- Rs 25,000 compensation, Rs 10,000 towards litigation cost and Rs 3,500 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 Rs 3,500 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 August 22, 2012, the couple had paid Rs 1,750 to the telecom firm for a combo facility of Internet TV Cable and Broadband connection.

Later, they again paid Rs 1,750 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.