BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 488 of 17.08.2015 Date of Decision: 22.08.2016.
Armaan Singh S/o. S. Maninder Singh, Advocate, R/o.364, St. No.9, Block-D, Satjot Nagar, Dhandra Road, Ludhiana-141116 (Punjab)
..… Complainant
Versus
- Airtel, having its Regd. Office at Bharti Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi-110070.
- Airtel, IC Tower, G-454, BRS Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. L.D. Gupta, Advocate.
For Ops : Sh. J.S. Bindra, Advocate.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) by pleading that he being student of LL.B, Ist year, in Regional Centre of P.U. at Ludhiana obtained Airtel 4G Internet connection No.9501347025, which was activated on 26.05.2015. Payment of Rs.2500/- was made qua the charges. Complainant was assured at the time of installing the connection that trouble free services will be provided. Even assurance was given for redressal of grievance promptly in case of malfunctioning of the connection. This connection stopped working on 13.06.2015 and thereafter, complainant lodged complaint on that day itself at 19.37 hours vide reference No.62519451. That was not resolved within time, but was resolved after one week after giving so many calls. Again internet connection stopped functioning, due to which complainant lodged complaints on 16.06.2015, 22.06.2015, 06.07.2015, 30.07.2015 and 05.08.2015, details of which given in para No.4 of the complaint. After registration of every complaint, assurance was given to complainant to resolve the same within 48 hours, but even after lapse of 72 hours, concerned officials did not bother to reply. Internet connection remained out of order 10-12 days, so complainant could not get benefit of internet connection, despite the fact that he has been paying the bills regularly. As complainant was preparing for Civil Services Exam and as such he suffered loss due to nonfunctioning of internet connection. On 08.08.2015, complainant appeared in examination of RBI Assistance, and on 09.08.2015, the complainant appeared in combined graduate level SSC paper. Both these exams were taken by complainant without availing assistance from internet connection. By pleading complete deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, prayer made for direction to OPs to change the server/equipment installed by Ops. Compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental tension and torture even claimed, besides litigation expenses of Rs.33,000/-.
2. In written statement filed by Ops, it is claimed that no cause of action survives because defect has been rectified by installation of new 4G internet connection by 02.30 PM on 17.11.2015. It is claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Admittedly 4G internet connection was installed at house of complainant with assurance of providing trouble free services. Admittedly, complaint was received in the office of OP, but same was immediately attended by rectifying the defects. What happened in the month of June, July or August, same is not relevant regarding present complaint. Complaint made on behalf of complainant was immediately attended to and ODU was replaced. Each and every other averment of complaint denied being incorrect.
3. Complainant to prove his case, tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C3 and then counsel for complainant closed evidence.
4. On the other hand, Sh. J.S. Bindra, Advocate counsel for Ops, tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Ms. Shreya Manhas, Senior Executive Legal of OP and then closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but oral arguments heard. Record gone through carefully.
5. From the pleadings of the parties and contents of Ex. C3, it is made out that complainant availed 4G internet connection. It is admitted that fault occurring in the operation of 4G internet connection was rectified at earliest and finally same was rectified by replacement of new installation on 17.11.2015. Denial regarding lodging of the complaints as mentioned in para No.4 of complaint not specifically made. So from the pleadings of parties and contents of affidavit Ex. CA and Ex. RA, it is made out that defect in the working of 4G internet connection though was not removed at earliest, but the same finally has been removed by installing new connection on 17.11.2015. It was not disclosed by the complainant to OPs that internet connection required for preparing for exams and even there is no guarantee that in case complainant would have been able to work on the internet connection during the examination days, then he would have cleared the exams undertaken by him. So damages claimed in this respect are remote damages, which cannot be allowed. However, complainant suffered due to improper functioning or malfunctioning of the internet connection in question for some time. Precise evidence qua amount of loss in that respect could not be adduced and court has to proceed on guess work for assessing quantum of compensation. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case M/s. Construction & Design Services Vs Delhi Development Authority, 2015(1) CLT 449 (SC).
6. What sort of loss complainant suffered, qua that no evidence adduced except evidence of remote damages as referred above. Ops have installed the new internet connection and as such they virtually have taken step for mitigating the sufferings of the complainant. In view of this, the fitness of things warrants that compensation of Rs.5000/- alone should be allowed for mental harassment and tension suffered by complainant due to non functioning or improper functioning of 4G internet connection in question for some time.
7. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that compensation of an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) will be payable by the Ops to the complainant. Litigation expenses of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against Ops. Payment of these compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copies of the order. No other relief is granted because rectification had already taken place by installation of new connection. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:22.08.2016.
Gobind Ram.
