Date of Filling      :  21.07.2015.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  26.08.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.36/2015

(Dated this Friday the 26^th day of August 2016)

M.S. Bharath Ram,

Plot No.42/2, Door No.1,

3^rd Cross, Bajanai Koil Street,

Hasthinapuram,

Chennai - 600 064.                                                                      … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  The Managing Director,

     M/s. MTS-Mblaze Ultra Wifi,

     Reg. Office: MTS Towers 3, Amprali Circle,

     Vaishali Nagar,

     Jaipur,

     Rajasthan - 302 021.

2.  The Branch Manager,

     MTS-Mblaze Ultra Wifi,

     M/s. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.,

     AMBIT IT PARK,

     32 A & B Industrial Estate, 2^nd Floor,

     Ambattur,

    Chennai - 600 058.                                                 … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 05.08.2016 in the presence of the complainant, Thiru. R. Damodaran, Counsel for the 1 & 2^nd  opposite parties and  having perused the documents and evidences and written arguments of both sides this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 & 2^nd  opposite parties for seeking relief to refund the cost Rs.1,500/- of MTS Wifi Dongle, Rs.4,500/- spent for unusable WiFi dongle and Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant  with cost Rs.5,000/-.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant received an SMS on cellphone on 26^th February 2015 regarding MTS WiFi Dongle internet connection.  When the complainant contacted the cell number mentioned in the SMS (9444698304) a representative answered the call and she sent on Mr. Ganesan (Mobile no.9445244244) on the same day to the complainant’s residence.  Mr. Ganesan spoke about the product very attractively.  When the complainant asked for a pre-sales demonstration, he said that he could not do so but he promised that if the internet signal or connectivity or speed becomes an issue, he would take back the dongle and return the money paid by the complainant.  Believing his words, the complainant bought an MTS WiFi dongle (No.8645844681) and paid Rs.1,500/- in cash.  He said that the bill-cum-receipt for Rs.1,500/- would be sent to the complainant through E-mail.

3.       The connection was activated on 28^th February 2015, the customer care of MTS-Mblaze Ultra WiFi informed the complainant that the 40 GB download limit was split into 20 GB in the day and 20 GB in the night.  The supplier assured the complainant that he will get an average speed of 6 mbps.  But when the complainant started using the internet, it was extremely slow and often hanged midway.  The loading of web pages, photos, videos and other web content was testing one’s patience.  When the complainant did an online speed test, it showed a drastically low speed of 0.6 mbps to 1.02 mbps (at the maximum). At this speed one could not use even 8 GB  of data though the supplier had promised 40 GB.  From the above, it is clear that there is no proper signal for MTS dongle in this area.

4.       When tried to contact the supplier’s representative over phone, they never picked up nor did they return his calls.  In 2 days, the complainant made more than 20 calls, all in vain.  This is a clear case of deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.  The complainant also made multiple phone calls and several E-mails to customer care and they gave evasive answers.  The complainant wrote an E-mail to the supplier’s Branch Manager, MTS Mblaze ultra Wifi, M/s. Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., 32 A, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai – 600 058 on 3^rd March 2015 requesting him to take back the MTS WiFi dongle, as promised and return the sum of Rs.1,500/-paid by the complainant.  In reply to this letter, they sent an E-mail on 4^th March 2015 suggesting some unworkable solution and false reasons.  The complainant on 17.03.2015 an E-mail to MTS Appellate Tamil Nadu with a copy to Customer Care @ MTS India, Jaipur, stating clearly that it was impossible to connect EVEN ONE device (through WiFi) to work with this connection, leave alone more connections, and requested then once again to return the sum of Rs.1,500/- paid by him.

5.       The contention of written version of the  1 & 2^nd opposite parties is  briefly as follows:-

The entire averments in the complaint submitted by the complainant, except those that are specifically admitted  herein by the opposite parties are put to strict proof by the complainant.  The description of the opposite parties is not correct.  The name of the organization is actually “Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., (Brand Name “MTS”) which is to be impleaded as the opposite party and not the “Managing Director” or the Branch Manager” of M/s. MTS Blaze Ultra Wi-Fi”.  It is submitted that the representatives will only explain the benefits about the products and its usage and benefits and there is nothing “attractive” as mentioned in the complaint.  Most importantly, as an educated adult, it is reasonably expected that the complainant makes an informed choice about any product or service that he intends to purchase or avail. 

6.       The allegations made by the complainant of slow speed and hanging, which using the MTS Wi-Fi Dongly (8645844681) and erroneously concluding that this was due to proper signals, are not correct.  The opposite parties most respectfully submit that these days, apart from laptop related usage, date-cards are widely used in mobile/smart – phone usage also by customers even outside their offices / residences, which travelling from one location to the other, wherein the radio-waves are dependent on the availability of network coverage in such locations.  In such scenarios and for the aforementioned reasons, the internet speeds may not always be uniform and consistent.  This is a factual situation that exists amongst all telecom operators.  The Customer Application Form (CAF) containing the terms and conditions of contract between the opposite parties and the complainant was signed by the complainant at the time of being enrolled as a customer. 

7.       In view of the above, the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  The opposite parties in response to the E-mail sent by the complainant dated 03.03.2015 sent a reply dated 04.03.2015, to follow certain steps for the optimum utilization of the “MTS Wi-Fi Dongle No.8645844681”. But the complainant does not seem to have followed the same.  As such, it is not the fault of the opposite parties or their services.  But due to the complainant not properly following the steps for the optimum usage.  The complainant was not able to get the average speed of 6 mbps is not correct and is unsubstantiated.  The further contention that the complainant is able to get a speed of 0.6 mbps to 1.02 mbps is also not correct.  In fact, as per our references, the complainant had 3 GB usage in the month of February, 2015 and no payment was done by the complainant and even full waiver was posted by the opposite parties.

8.       The complainant neither gave the name of the representative nor the details of the alleged calls made to him.  Proper reply to the E-mails by the complainant were given by the opposite parties.  That “MTS” is purely service oriented and hence the contention that it has denied that consumer rights is not correct.  The contention that the complainant spent Rs.4500/- for buying two more dongles and two, three SIM cards are not really relevant or material to the instant case.  The allegation of mental agony being caused to the complainant is unjustified.   There is no deficiency in service and hence they are not liable  to pay the alleged expenses incurred by the complainant.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked.   Whereas, on the side of the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties, proof affidavit is filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were marked for his evidence.

10.      At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

11.     Written arguments filed on both sides.  Oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant.  Inspite of sufficient time given to the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties, they have not come forward to adduce oral arguments.  Hence, it is closed.

12.     Point no.1:-

On perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is learnt that the complainant, on believing the words of one Mr. Ganesan, representative of the opposite parties, had bought MTS WiFi Dongle (No.8645844681) on payment of Rs.1,500/- and the receipt for the same has been sent through E-mail.  The application form submitted by the complainant is Ex.B1 and the model form is marked as Ex.B2.  At the outset, though it is true that the complainant has not produced the bill before this Forum, but it is an admitted fact by the opposite parties and Ex.B1, the application form is very much evidences for the same.  It is further learnt that the supplier of the opposite party assured the complainant that he will get an average speed of 6 mbps.   But when the complainant started using the internet, it was extremely slow and often hanged the midway and when the complainant did an online speed test, it showed a drastically low speed of 0.6 mbps to 1.02 mbps(at the maximum).  It is further seen from the proof affidavit of the complainant that at the above said speed one could not use even 8 GB of data though the supplier had promised 40 GB and thereby, it is clear that there is no proper signal for MTS Dongle.  It is further stated by the complainant that when he tried to talk to the supplier’s representative over phone for the above said low speed, they have never picked up the phone nor did they return his calls and the complainant’s efforts ended in vain.

13.     Then, the complainant had issued Ex.A1, legal notice through registered post with acknowledgement card to the opposite parties and the same was received by  the opposite parties but the opposite parties has not come forward to reply.  Again the complainant had sent Ex.A2 & Ex.A4 E-mail to the opposite parties by explaining the condition of the MTS Wifi dongle and requested to take back MTS WiFi Dongle as promised and to return the sum of Rs.1,500/- paid by the complainant.  In this regard, the opposite parties has sent a reply which is marked as Ex.A5 but not come forward to solve the problem.  Therefore, again the complainant sent Ex.A6 & Ex.A7 letters to the opposite parties.   But the opposite parties refused to refund for the complainant and not come forward to rectify the defects.  At the outset, it is crystal clear that the purchase of MTS WiFi dongle for the speed and later the complainant sent letters to refund the cost of the MTS WiFi Dongle Rs.1,500/- for  the internet low speed or to rectify the defects and the opposite parties in their reply promised to refund but failed to do so are all clear from the Ex.A1 to Ex.A7.  At the same time, the only contention raised by the opposite party is that in these days, apart from laptop related usage, data-cards are widely used in mobile/ smart-phone usage also by customers even outside their offices / residences while travelling from one location to the other, wherein the radio-waves are dependent on the availability of network coverage in such locations and for the reasons the internet speeds may not always be uniform and consistent which is a factual situation that exists amongst all telecom operators.  Further as per Ex.B1, which is the terms and conditions of contract between the opposite parties and the complainant was signed by the complainant and therefore the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant, since there is no deficiency of service on the part of them.

14.     From the above facts and circumstances, it is clearly seen that the MTS WiFi dongle (No.8645844681) could  not been used in full speed as promised by the representative of the opposite parties.  If it is so, as per the contract made by the representative of the opposite party to the complainant, if the internet signal is not proper, the opposite parties would have taken steps to rectify the defect otherwise, he would have taken back the MTS WiFi dongle and refund the money to the complainant.  It is averred in the written version as well as in the proof affidavit of the opposite parties, that they have also informed the complainant to collect the refund of Rs.1,500/-  but the complainant was refused to collect the same.   But there is no proof to show that the opposite parties has taken steps to refund the amount of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant or the same was rejected by the complainant.  Infact, after the complainant had filed this complaint only, the opposite parties have come forward to refund the above said amount at the time of filing their written version.  Even there after, till this date, the opposite parties have not come forward to refund the amount of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant.

15.     From the forgoing among other facts and circumstances, the opposite parties was neither come forward to rectify the defects which is mentioned in the complaint regarding the speed of the MTS WiFi Dongle nor to refund of Rs.1,500/- paid for the purchase of the said Dongle and thereby, the opposite parties had admitted the deficiency of service on their part.  At the same time, regarding the purchase of two more unusable WiFi dongles, two, three SIM cards for the sum of Rs.4,500/- by the complainant has not at all proof by means of relevant evidence and not produced any receipt for the same.  Therefore, the complainant has not proved the above said allegation.  Thus, the point no.1 is answered accordingly.

16.     Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of MTS WiFi Dongle with some reasonable compensation with cost.  Thus point no.2 is answered accordingly.

17.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly the 1 & 2 opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only) towards cost of MTS WiFi dongle to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for not refunding the said amount in time and thereby, for causing mental agony to the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of the 1 & 2 opposite parties with cost Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only), totally of Rs.9,500/- (Rupees nine thousand five hundred only).  In respect of other reliefs, this complaint is dismissed.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 26^th   August  2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT