ARUNAVA MUKHERJEE Vs. BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the complaint are Mr. Arunava Mukherjee, Complainant filed this complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Opposite Parry, M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited. The OP is a company providing wireless broadband, GSM telecom services and other services, with its registered office at New Delhi and carries on its business throughout the territory of India. The Complainant is a Subscriber and availing two services provided by the OP as following:

(2.) These two services are provided under separate contracts and are billed separately. From the date of subscription, the Complainant chose the option for itemized paper bill.

(3.) The complainant suffered humiliation due to bad conduct and deficiency in services of the OP. The complainant interacted with the number of representatives of OP, several e-mails and SMS correspondences between Complainant and OP took place. He also approached the appellate authority and the National Escalation Team but, no avail. Hence, he filed the Complaint for deficiency in service by the OP.