Complaint filed on: 22.03.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 14.12.2016

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.627/2012

            DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016           

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Sri Krishna

Sri Ramachandra K.N.

Aged about 60 years,

Resident of No.47/1,

20^th Main Road, 6^th cross,

‘G’ block, Sahakaranagar

Bengaluru-92

By Adv. Sri. P.S.Mohan  

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. Reliance Communications outlet, Beyond limits, No.22/1, Jala Darshini Layout, New BEL Road,

RMV 2^nd stage,

Bengaluru-94

2. The Nodal Officer,

Prabhu Shankar,

Reliance communications Ltd., Subramanya Arcade, No.12/2 Towers 1^st Floor,

Bannerghatta Road,

Bengaluru-29

3. The Registered Office Reliance Communications ltd., H Block, 1^st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai-400710

Maharastra

India

For Opposite party No.2 & No.3

By Adv. Sri.K.S.Mohithkumar   

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

          The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service about the broadband/internet connection availed under “Postpaid Tariff Plan” of the Opposite parties and has claimed the compensation.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he was the subscriber of broadband/internet connection device under “Postpaid Tariff Plan” of a monthly rental amount of Rs.950/- (5 GB) with speed of 3.1mbps. Because of low speed, the net connection never functioned properly. In response to his requests Opposite party engineer visited on 27.05.2011 and 25.06.2011  and  admitted that the lack of speed was because of tower problem, for want of additional sufficient number of towers in the area. Hence he was forced to discontinue the net connection by writing a letter dated 23.06.2011. Inspite of the said letter the Opposite parties sent the bill of July and August 2011 and it shows negligence and irresponsibility on their part in issuing the bills. Despite his requests and his legal notice dated 03.10.2011 no response was made by the Opposite parties. On the other hand on 05.12.2011, they sent the legal notice demanding outstanding amount of Rs.887/- from him without mentioning about his earlier complaint and notice. Hence this complaint is filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  

          3. The Opposite parties No.2 & 3 filed their common version contending that complaint is not maintainable in view of Supreme Court judgment (2009 AIR SCW 5631). The Complainant had purchased Reliance wireless broadband device on 20.05.2011 under “Postpaid Tariff Plan” of Rs.950/- with data speed up to 3.1mbps. The Opposite party No.3 is the licensee under Telegraph Act and Opposite party No.2 is its employee and hence are within ambit of Telegraph Act. As per the section 7B of Telegraph Act, remedy is under the arbitration proceedings and not through the Consumer Forum. The data speed is subject to many external conditions. The case of the Complainant is based on imaginary grounds and not backed by authorities. After being satisfied with the demo conducted by the Opposite parties, the Complainant became the subscriber. Now he cannot make allegations on baseless things. The allegations referring to inspection by Opposite party officials are imaginary. They have not received any letter for cancellation of the connection from the Complainant. Legal notice is after thought one. Complaint is bad for non-joinder of manufacturer. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

          4. The Complainant has been examined as PW-1 relying on Ex-A1 to A13 copies of documents. The official of Opposite parties No.2 & 3 have been examined as DW-1. No documents were produced by the Opposite parties side.  Written arguments were filed by Opposite parties No.2 & 3.  Arguments were heard.

5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency against the Opposite parties in their internet/broadband connection and in not disconnecting the same ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2. As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1 : The undisputed facts reveal that in response to the offers of Opposite parties/Reliance communications as per Ex-A1, the Complainant opted for NC+Silver 5 GB for the monthly rent of Rs.950/- and thereby became the subscriber of the said scheme and got the internet and broadband connection on 20.05.2011 as per bill Ex-A2.  The connection was activated on 21.05.2011. Within 4 months he started feeling aggrieved for not availing the expected service and started approaching the Opposite parties through e-mails as per Ex-A3 to Ex-A10.

8. In his first e-mail as per Ex-A3 dated 22.05.2011 he complained about the low speed in the gap of 60 to 140 kbps as against the expected believed capacity up to 3mbps. In that email he had stated that if the speed does not improve he would walk out from the service claiming refund of the amount paid for the data card. The Opposite parties through Ex-A4 email dated 23.05.2011 contended that the speed will depend on variety of factors like computer configuration-network load-internet traffic-signal strength available at the time of connection-site is visiting, reiterating that the actual speed can be as high as 3.1mbps, with a request to change the network setting and to perform the activities mentioned in attachment provided. Through Ex-A5 the Opposite parties again on 28.05.2011 informed him to download DAP software from www.google.com that is download accelerator plus which is a net accelerator software and then to call customer care for further assistants.

9. On 25.06.2011 the Opposite parties requested to reconsider the decisions of the cancellation made even through Ex-A10 e-mail dated 23.06.2011. On 28.06.2011 the Complainant sent e-mail as per Ex-A8 seeking cancellation of disconnection of net connection service alleging that he has lot of inconvenience because of slow net speed, even after the service of engineers from Opposite parties was availed.

10. In Ex-A9 e-mail dated 25.06.2011, that is, issued before the alleged cancellation request of Ex-A8, the Opposite parties informed the Complainant to send the details as the subscriber name provided by him is not matching in their records. The details sought for by them are - reason for termination and Complainant address and subscriber name, date of birth, billing account number, alternate number, best time to contact him. The Opposite parties further informed through Ex-A9 that such requests would be considered by them through process which take 15 days, further informing that the monthly rental is applicable as long as the services of that number which remains active as per their records but during the suspension period of the said services charges will not be applied to the bill.

          11. In Ex-A10 the Opposite parties informed to the Complainant on 22.06.2011 that waiver of Rs.580.78 was posted in his account which would be reflected in next month bill is also, further informing that the message that would be sent by him if exceeds the size limit of 5mb per mail including attachment may not be delivered and hence to create and sent shorter message. Thereafter the message as per Ex-A8 dated 28.06.2011 was sent by the Complainant to the Opposite parties by furnishing particulars as required in Ex-A9.

          12. The Complainant has not furnished the bills or particulars sent to him by the Opposite parties subsequent to Ex-A8 dated 28.06.2011 to establish how many days after the complaint the Opposite parties disconnected and to show within or after the said disconnected period, what was the amount claimed by the Opposite parties with the claimed heads. It is undisputed that the Opposite parties sent the notice dated 05.12.2011 as per Ex-A13 demanding Rs.887.01 as outstanding default in payment of service charges with the allegations that in accordance with the terms & conditions of the said service, he had undertaken to pay all service charges in full without any deduction/set off/withholding with respect to the services availed by him.

          13.  The Complainant in order to show the deficiency in service has to produce the reminders/bills received periodically by him from the date as per Ex-A8. He has privilege of getting the waiving of Rs.580.78 in the July month bill and non-production of the said bill shows the suppression of material facts before this forum. Unless the supported documents are produced the claim made by the Opposite parties through Ex-A13 cannot be considered as wrongly issued. In the absence of rebuttal evidence by the Complainant, the issuing of the Ex-A13 notice demanding the amount cannot be considered as the defective service by the Opposite parties.

14. The Complainant had sent the legal notice as per Ex-A11 on 03.10.2011 against all the Opposite parties through registered port supported by Ex-A12. The Complainant has admitted in Ex-A11 legal notice that the internet/broadband connection was taken to his residence at Sahakaranagar and by visiting his house the engineers/technicians of Opposite parties suggested him to download ancillary system. In response to the possible reasons/grounds raised by the Opposite parties, the Complainant downloaded DAP software/downloaded accelerator after the second week of June 2011.  In Ex-A6 the Opposite parties informed him about the using of the services properly with the available good speed for which he was not agreeing to use the services properly as advised. The Complainant has not produced the rebuttal evidence or explanation for such information provided by the Opposite parties. Non-compliance of the advice does not permit the Complainant to make allegations against the Opposite parties. The Complainant should have produced the expert evidence to show how it becomes deficiency in their service. In the absence of such expert evidence from any other service providers or by experts, definitely his evidence remained as oral allegations only.

15. Number of grounds as stated by the Opposite parties become the reasons for low speed. The Complainant has not produced such evidence to show that he had operated the system in such a manner, where all the grounds made by the Opposite parties cannot be made applicable his case.  The Complainant has failed to establish that he used the system properly as advised by the Opposite parties, availing circumstances as suggested by them and that there was no obstructions from his side, which empowers the Opposite parties to raise the grounds. In the absence of such evidence by the Complainant, the alleged imperfection, non-performance of the obligations by the Opposite parties cannot be inferred. Hence, there are no grounds made out by the Complainant to establish the Consumer Dispute No.1. Accordingly Consumer Dispute No.1 answered in the negative.

16. Consumer Dispute No.2: The Opposite parties have contended that they being the licensee under Indian Telegraph Act are exempted from coming under the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. The Telegraph Act directly refers to the Telegraph Authority, Telegraph Line which have to be dealt only by Central Government through its concerned departments as provided under 7B Indian Telegraph Act 1985. Such privilege cannot be extended to the licensee or its employees and there is no mentioning about the acts of licensees of Telegraph department. Hence the grounds raised by the Opposite parties also cannot be accepted. In the result the Complainant deserve to get the following.

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 14th day of December 2016).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of Opposite parties