Date of Filing :   09.01.2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   16.03.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.40/2014

WEDNESDAY THIS  16^th  DAY OF MARCH 2016

T.S. Sudarsan,

Flat No.2, Subhiksha Flats,

1, Ponnangipuram, 2^nd Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600  034.                                        ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1. Authorized Signatory,

Bharti Airtel Ltd (Corporate),

Bascon Futura SV 3^rd and 4^th Floors,

No.59L, Venkatnarayana Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai 600 017.

2.  Authorized Signatory,

Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

Bharti Cresent,

1, Nelson Mandela Road,

Vasant Kunj, Phase II,

New Delhi 110 070.                                        ..Opposite parties  

For the Complainant                   :   Party in person.

For the  Opposite parties             :   M/s.  Iyer & Thomas & others

         This complaint is filed by the complainant   under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act. 1986 claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation and  for litigation expenses against the opposite parties for the deficiency of service caused by the opposite parties, which caused  mental agony and hard ship suffered by complainant.

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

         The complainants has raised grievance in the complaint stating that during the month of July 2013, the complaint mentioned Broad Band connection was not functioning properly, as such on  the various dates i.e. 10.07.2013, and 13.07.2013, 14.07.2013 and 17.07.2013, 18.07.2013 and 19.07.2013 it was not functioning properly.  The complainant  has made complaint to the opposite  parties by taking so much of effort the opposite parties have also attended the said complaint by sending their technical staff on the said various dates, though the repairs were attended by them, and said to have been rectified  on those days and again the said broad band was not working properly and after giving problem as if “You have gone offline”,  which caused the complainant  with great extent by hampering in attending his work.  As such, the complainant has gone for alternative and got connection with M/s. Reliance Net Connection, on 23.9.2013 by paying necessary fee and using the same.  The complainant  has further alleged that  he has not much used the said broad band connection of the opposite parties from the month of August onwards but the opposite parties  are used to send monthly bills claiming a sum of Rs.7483.70-  as due as on 6.1.2014 for the non service which is untenable. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- against the opposite parties  alleging that the said act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.

Written Version of 1^st opposite party  is briefly as follows:

2.      The opposite parties deny all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The  complaint mentioned allegations against opposite parties are all false.    Whereas the opposite parties have resisted the said complaint by stating that  the allegation made in the complaint by the complainant that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service, is not correct and denied by them.   Further stated that the opposite parties have attended the fault in the broad band connection, whenever the complainant has made complaint in proper manner, particularly on 10.07.2013, 13.07.2013, 14.07.2013, 17.07.2013 and 18.07.2013 by sending the technician to attend the same and they have rectified the defects to the satisfaction of the complainant, by confirming that the said broad band is functioning properly by the complainant.  Even on 23.07.2013, the complaint made by the complainant was attended and rectified.  The complainant also given confirmation to the executives of the opposite parties, that the connection is working properly.  However for the said broad band connection, the complainant failed to make payments for the monthly rental and usages since the period of 05.08.2013 to 4.09.2013, 5.09.2013 to 4.10.2013, 5.10.2013 to 4.11.2013, 5.11.2013 to  4.12.2013  and 4.12.2013 to 4.01.-20 14  which totally amounts of Rs.7,483.70.    Though the monthly bills were sent to the complainant, the complainant has not paid the dues till this date.  Complainant have been not paid the said amount and committed default and filed this complaint against the opposite parties on false allegations and claiming huge amount of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation without any valid reason, as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4  were marked on his side.  On behalf ofthe opposite parties the  authorized person filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.B1 series is marked as documents on the side of opposite parties.

4.  The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

5.  POINTS 1 & 2 : -         

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by opposite  parties, the proof affidavits filed by both the parties   and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 filed on the side of complainant and Ex.B1 series filed on the side of opposite parties and considered both side arguments.

6.     There is no dispute that the complainant have obtained broad band connection provided by the opposite parties with effect from 13.04.2013.   The said Broad Band connection is of the Plan “UL Turbo 30GB” DSL combo plan with (4mbps/256kbps speed)   by charging monthly rental of Rs.1499 excluding service tax.  The complainant’s broad band account no. is 7006202881. 

7.     However considering the both side case, though the opposite parties have admitted that the said broad band connection provided by them to the complainant was suffered by not properly working during the month of July 2013 continuously, the opposite parties contended that the above defects were attended on the dates in which the complaint was received  immediately,  then  and there, since the complainant has made a detailed allegation in the complaint that though the opposite parties have attended the complaint in some days during July 2013 they have not rectified the defects in proper manner and not made the said connection to work properly is acceptable, because if the opposite parties have attended in proper manner the said connection would not have repeatedly  and in continuously in day to day manner suffered defect.  It is also pertinent to mention that though the opposite parties have contended that they have attended several days and rectified the defects in the said broad band connection in order to prove the same they have not filed any records in respect  of  the  same  by  their  office,  and  proved  that  the defects was completely rectified.   Further the complaint mentioned broad band connection was not working from during the last week of the July 2013, despite of several demands made by telephone calls by the complainant to the opposite parties executives is not properly answered by the opposite parties.  Further as contended by the complainant due to non proper working of the said connection he was compelled to choose another broad band connection from M/s. Reliance Company is also acceptable. 

8.     Further as contended by the complainant, complainant was not able to use the said broad band connection of the opposite parties from the last week of July 2013, as such he was suffered and compelled to choose the reliance broad band connection and accordingly he has got said  Reliance Connection Ex.A4 from  23-09-2013 onwards is acceptable.  Therefore the complainant has not used the broad band connection of the opposite parties from 25^th July 2013 onwards  as it was not functioning properly.   Therefore as contended by the complainant the complainant is not liable to pay the monthly rental and other charges for the said broad band connection of the opposite parties.  Contrary to this, the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has not paid the charges for the said connection from 05.08.2013 to 04.01.2014, as such, a sum of Rs 7,483.70-  is due as per the monthly bills filed as Ex.B1 series is not acceptable.   Because the opposite parties has not proved that the said broad band connection availed by the complainant  was in a proper working  condition and the complainant used the said connection  from the month of August 2013 to January 2014, the mere production of Ex.B1 series mentioned monthly bills alone will not be a proof for the above said connection.  Further the opposite parties have not produced any terms and conditions relating to the said broad band connections with regard to payment of monthly charges, the consequences for the non-payment of charges, effecting disconnection of the broad band connection by the opposite parties themselves and at the request of the consumers/complainant etc.,  but in the normal course, on the nonpayment of monthly charges within the due date mentioned   in the monthly bills, the said connection would have been disconnected.  However in this case the opposite parties have not did so, reason for such absence of taking action on their part is also not given and explained.  Therefore we are of the considered view that since the complainant was not able to use the said broad band connection due to its defect   from the last week of July 2013, the complainant  cannot be charged to pay rental and other charges for the subsequent months.  Further it is not disputed by the opposite parties that the complainant is due to pay the monthly rental and other charges  for the said connection upto  July 2013.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the act of the opposite parties is charging for the said  broad band connection from 5^th August 2013 to 4^th January 2014 and demanding a sum of Rs.7,483.70-  against the complainant,  is not proper and not tenable to facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above.   Contrary to this the demand made by the opposite parties against the complainant for Rs.7483.70 amounts to unfair trade practice.   Further the opposite parties having received the charges and not provided proper broad band connection without any defect for make use of the same to the complainant to his satisfaction continuously during the month of July 2013 is also amounts to deficiency of service.  Therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant to that extent. 

9.     However complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.20,00,000- against the opposite parties which is very exorbitant when considering the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore we are of the considered view  that  the opposite parties are  jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

        In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite parties 1 and 2   are jointly and severally   directed to  pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only)  as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation charges to the complainant  within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above said compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- will carry interest at the rate of  9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

Dictated directly by the President to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th  day of March 2016.

MEMBER-II                                                                      PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  8.4.2013   - Copy  of customer relationship form.

Ex.A2-         -       - Copy of Airtel bill plan details.

Ex.A3- 31.7.2013  - Copy of Acknowledgment.

Ex.A4- 23.9.2013  - Copy of Customer Receipt reliance.

Opposite parties’ Exhibits:-    

Ex.B1- Aug’2013 to-  Copy of monthly bills sent by the opposite parties to

             Jan’2014    -  the complainant.

MEMBER-II                                                                      PRESIDENT.