Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows. The complainant               is a share market business person who was a user of BSNL broad band                       service.  Meanwhile the opposite parties representatives approached him and offered more technical facilities and cent percent coverage of their broadband                   connection, believing the assurance given by them, the complainant decided to take the opposite parties broadband connection for his business purposes.  It is contended that on 30/04/2016 the opposite party’s internet connection in ‘TU 999 monthly scheme broadband connection’ was provided to the complainant for of Rs.3,300/. It is stated that even at the time of the installation of   the said connection the complainant has not got any coverage from this broadband                 so that he informed the defects to the opposite parties.  It is further contended that when they redress the complaint the complainant released the cheque amount of the Rs.3,300/- to the opposite party.  According to the complainant even after the rectification of the complaint by the opposite party only two days the internet was functioned properly and there after again it failed.  It is further contended that as a result of the failure of the opposite parties broad band connection the complainant could not go ahead with his share business and it affected his goodwill and financial conditions. The complainant contended that the act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice defined under Consumer Protection Act and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Hence this complaint to refund the installation charges, compensation, cost etc.etc from the opposite parties.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version as follows.  According to the opposite parties this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is contended that the opposite parties did not canvas the complainant for a broadband connection as alleged by the complainant.  It is also stated that opposite party’s company is a reputed firm and provide internet connection through out the country and abroad.  The complainant’s connection is a domestic connection and not a SME plan (commercial and business purpose).  It is further contended that broadband connection was provided to the complainant with quality equipment like modem router and cables.  When the complainant complaint certain defect to the opposite party, they rectified all these defect without any delay.  According to the opposite parties it is understood that the signal strength is low and it has to be replaced by 540 cables with RJ-11Cable for more signal strength. This opposite parties provided timely service for the replacement of the existing cable.  The bill amount of the internet connection was for the used amount of internet as per his plan.  It is again stated that the complainant filed this case for getting an ex-orbitant amount from the opposite party.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. This Forum perused the complaint, version and the records before us and we framed the following issues for consideration.  

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                      In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 and A8 were also marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the provisional certificate No. ADL/2752122 and 26/04/2016 issued from the 1^st opposite party’s office. Ext. A2 is the copy of the New installation report dated:26/04/2016 issued from 2^nd opposite party’s office. Ext. A3 is the copy of the Brochure issued from the 3^rd opposite party’s office.  Ext. A4 is the copy of the brochure issued from the 3^rd opposite party’s office showing 24 hours service.  Ext. A5 is the copy of the complaint dated: 31/05/2016 sent to the 1^st opposite party’s office along with copy of the Postal receipt.  Ext. A6 is the copy of the complaint dated:31/05/2016.  Ext. A7 is the copy of the complaint dated: 31/05/2016.  Ext. A8 is the E-mail copy of the reply letter received from the 1^st opposite party’s office.  Ext. A9 is the copy of the acknowledgment card.  On the other side the opposite parties have not examined any witness or marked any document in their favour. The opposite parties learned counsel cross-examined PW1 in detail.  The opposite parties learned counsel filed argument note apart from his submission before this Forum. After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.

5. Point No.1: The opposite parties strongly contended that there is no jurisdiction for this Forum to entertain this case and there is no material in the complaint even for entertaining the complaint. When we look into the evidence adduced by the complainant it is to be noted that though the opposite parties raised series contention with regard to the jurisdiction and maintainability they failed to adduce any material evidence to substantiate their contention.   Therefore we safely come to a conclusion to the effect that the case is maintainable before this Forum and also having jurisdiction to try the case.  It is clear that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite parties are service providers of the complainant.  Hence Point No. 1 found in favour of the complainant.  
6. Point Nos. 2 and 3:   For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When we evaluate the evidence adduced by the complainant PW1, it is revealed that PW1’s proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination is more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  He deposed that he was a BSNL broadband customer and by believing the assurance and offer given by the opposite parties persons he was happened to avail opposite parties broad band connection for a better service.  It is also deposed that even at the date of installation of the 2^nd opposite party broadband connection it found defective and rectified by the opposite parties.  Again the system found effective the PW1 informed this fact to the opposite party, they respond and rectified the mistake.  It is deposed that only 3 days the system was functioned properly and afterwards the system was failed totally.  In order to substantiate the contention of the complainant he produced and marked Ext. A1 to Ext. A8 as discussed above.  The provisional receipt dated:26/04/2016 proves that the opposite parties received   Rs. 3,300/- towards the new broadband connection and installation charge.  Ext. A2 is a new installation report issued in favour of PW1 by the field engineer of opposite party dated:26/04/2016.  In Ext.A2 it is stated “I am aware that it is safe for the PC to connect modem via LAN Card.  Now connecting to USB since LAN Card is not available.  I will install a LAN Card as early as possible and connect the modem through it.  I am taking the risk of connecting modem to PC Via USB”. When we go through Ext. A2 it is understood that for better performance of this broadband connection the modem has to be connected to PC via USB.  It is also seen that the field engineer of the opposite party had given an assurance to this effect.  Ext. A3 is a brochure shows that the opposite parties are having all facilities to provide a high speed broadband connection with unbeatable monthly complaints.  Ext. A4 is also a brochure shows different kinds of monthly plans.  Ext. A5 series shows that the complainant PW1 has given a letter dated:31/05/2016 to opposite parties offices at Thiruvananthapuram for the disconnection of the broadband connection due to resolved connection problem and insufficient service.  Ext. A5(2) is a complaint receipt issued by customer care to the complainant PW1.  Ext.A5(3) is a copy of the e-mail communication dated: 31/05/2016 related to the disconnection letter Ext. A5(1).  When we peruse Ext. A1 to A5 series it is come out in evidence to see that though the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 3,300/- on 26/04/2016 to opposite party for a new connection it is instated only on 31/05/2016.  The system became failed and the complainant informed the opposite parties to disconnect the broad band connection.  Ext. A6 is a letter issued by opposite parties customer care stating that the disconnection requested has been forwarded to the concerned for necessary action.  Ext. A7 Acknowledgement Card shows that the opposite parties office situated at Thiruvananthapuram received a letter on 31/05/2016 from the complainant.  Ext. A8 dated: 01/06/2016 is a bill for an amount of Rs.339.30/-which was payable on 16/06/2016 to opposite party.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party cross-examined PW1 at the time of trial.  Though the learned counsel asked so many questions with regard to the broadband plan and the nature of the use of the internet etc nothing brought out to disbelieve the case of the complainant.  It is also to be taken into account that though the opposite party seriously contested almost all the aspect of the complaint of the complainant through their version they failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their contention.  The opposite parties did not even ready to adduce any oral evidence to substantiate their case.
7.  It is true that the complainant has not adduced any technical expert report to prove their contention.  When we evaluate the evidence we can clearly understood that the broad band system of the opposite parties were not properly functioning as alleged by the complainant.  When we refer Ext. A2 it is revealed that for a proper functioning of this connection the modem has to be connected to PVC via land card.  The land card was not available at the time of  the installation and the filed engineer of the opposite party has given and assurance to provide the land card and it is also to see that the field engineer is taking the risk for connecting the modem to PC via USB.  The opposite parties version page 4 paragraph 15 it is stated “There we detected the problem of cable and we assured the complainant that since signal strength is low we need to replace 540 cable with RJ-11 cable for more signal strength to long distance. This cable has to be installed from the main loop to eradicate the problem of low signal strength.  And the cable already connected from the main splitter was replaced for the complainant and assured to replace the main cable throughout the road in a short period.  That the opposite parties provided timely service without and deficiency”. On the basis of the version of the opposite party this portion is a clear admission on the part of the opposite parties with regard to the low signal and poor performance of the system.  It is also to be noted that the opposite parties entertained the grievances of the complainant and tried to rectify the failure of the system.  It is to see that though the system is rectified even after three days system has became failed.  On the basis of the evidence discussed above we are of the view that the complainant PW1 avoided a BSNL broadband connection and installed the opposite parties Asianet broadband connection on the basis of an assurance of better performance of the system.  It is proved that the opposite parties Asianet broadband system was also failed there by the complainant/PW1 suffered a lot to go ahead with his share market business.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that though the complainant claimed a huge compensation against the opposite parties the complainant failed to adduce any substantial materials to prove it.  We do admit that though the complainants claim a huge compensation with regard to failure of the opposite parties broad band system the complainant did not adduce any positive evidence.  Anyhow the learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that when considering the nature and circumstances of the case and the loss sustained to the complainant by the failure of the system the complainant is eligible to get a reasonable compensation from the opposite parties because the said failure highly affected his day to day business.  We are also inclined to award a reasonable compensation to the complainant as submitted by the complainant’s counsel.  The 1^st opposite party is the Managing Director Asianet Satellite Connection Limited, Thiruvananthapuram the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are his subordinate officers as Managers of Kottayam and Thiruvalla respectively.  Therefore opposite party 1 to 3 are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.   Therefore we find that the complaint is allowable and Point No.2 and 3 are also found in favour of the complainant. 
8.   In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The opposite parties are here by directed to refund the new connection installation charge Rs.3,300/- (Rupees Three Thousand and Three Hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of the installation of this complaint i.e, 26/12/2015 onwards.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of                     

Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) along with a cost of

     Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10%

     interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14^th  day of November, 2017.

                                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)        :     (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Suresh.V.R

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Copy of the provisional certificate No. ADL/2752122 and 26/04/2016 issued

         from the 1^st opposite party’s office.

A2 :  Copy of the New installation report dated:26/04/2016 issued from 2^nd

        opposite party’s office.

A3 :  Copy of the Brochure issued from the 3^rd opposite party’s office.

A4 :  Copy of the brochure issued from the 3^rd opposite party’s office showing 24

        hours service.

A5 : Copy of the complaint dated: 31/05/2016 sent to the 1^st opposite party’s

        office along with copy of the along with copy of the Postal receipt.

A6 :  Copy of the complaint dated:31/05/2016. 

A7 :  Copy of the complaint dated: 31/05/2016.

A8 :  E-mail copy of the reply letter received from the 1^st opposite party’s office.

A9 :  Copy of the acknowledgment card. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

                                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Suresh Rajagopal,

                    Paattathil,

                    Paattathil Chira, Kavumbhagom.P.O,

                             Thiruvalla – 689102.

3.  The Managing Director,

               Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.,

               Regd. & Corporate Office,

               2-A, II^nd floor, Leela Infopark

               Technopark, Kzhakkoottam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695581.

4. The Manager,

               Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.,

               Zonal Office, Chirothu Building, Opp. CTO,

               Vayaskara Lane, Pulimoodu Jn., Kottayam.

5. The Manager,

               Asianet Satellite Communications,

               Branch Office, Ramanchira PO,

               Thiruvalla,

6.  The Stock File.