62nd Day Of Lockdown

Maharashtra50231146001635 Tamil Nadu162778324112 Gujarat140636412858 Delhi134186540261 Rajasthan70283848163 Madhya Pradesh66653408290 Uttar Pradesh62683538161 West Bengal36671339272 Andhra Pradesh2780184156 Bihar257470211 Karnataka208965442 Punjab2060189840 Telangana1854109253 Jammu and Kashmir162180921 Odisha13365507 Haryana118476516 Kerala8485206 Assam393584 Jharkhand3701484 Uttarakhand317583 Chandigarh2621794 Chhatisgarh252640 Himachal Pradesh203594 Tripura1941650 Goa66160 Puducherry41120 Manipur3220 Meghalaya14121 Arunachal Pradesh210 Mizoram110 Sikkim100
Business Other News 02 Oct 2017 Hyderabad: Wrong sim ...

Hyderabad: Wrong sim deactivation costs Bharthi Airtel Rs 30,000

DECCAN CHRONICLE. | DONITA JOSE
Published Oct 2, 2017, 2:02 am IST
Updated Oct 2, 2017, 4:53 am IST
Rao claimed he had suffered a loss of Rs 16 lakh as a result of the termination of his connection.
The forum ruled in favour of the consumer partially for having had his connection wrongfully deactivated.
 The forum ruled in favour of the consumer partially for having had his connection wrongfully deactivated.

Hyderabad: The wrongful deactivation and porting of a SIM card without the consent of the consumer cost Bharti Airtel Rs 30,000. The consumer, Mr Raghavendar Rao of Balkampet in the citiy, had been an Airtel user since 2010 and his connection was terminated in 2015. The SIM card was re-activated within a week but terminated once again within two days.

Mr Rao claimed he had suffered a loss of Rs 16 lakh as a result of the termination of his connection. He booked a case of cheating and intimidation against Airtel at the Mahankali police station and moved the Hyderabad District Consumer Forum.

 

Airtel representatives told the forum that when the company had offered to reactive his connection, Mr Rao had demanded a fancy number along with a compensation of `10 lakh. They said they were not directly liable as a smaller outlet which represented them had caused the problem. They said that the forum had limited jurisdiction in the matter which came under the purview of the Telegraph Act, 1885 and the consumer would have to approach an arbitrator appointed by Centre.

The forum cited a judgement given in 2012 by the Maharashtra State Consumer Commission to state that it had the jurisdiction. It took note of the fact that Airtel had offered the consumer means to have the connection restored, which the consumer had declined.

The forum ruled in favour of the consumer partially for having had his connection wrongfully deactivated. The compensation claim was reduced from Rs 16 lakh to Rs 30,000 as Mr Rao was unable to provide proof of the losses suffered.

...
Location: India, Telangana, Hyderabad




ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT