By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

1. The grievances of the complainant is as follows:-

          It is alleged by the complainant that  the representative of the opposite party approached him and persuaded to port  his mobile connection  with the net work of the opposite party  and  it was  also  assured  by the representative that  there would be   hassle free  network  to the connection  of the opposite party.   It was  also  offered  by the representative of the  opposite party that, it was providing  a better  smooth  4G network data  to its customers  and also offered   better plans  if  the complainant  ported  his mobile connection  with the opposite party.  As a result of persuasion, the complainant had ported his mobile connection with the network of the opposite party.  It is alleged that after switching over to the connection of the opposite party in January 25^th of 2020, it was noticed that network coverage was very poor than the earlier connection.  Neither the complainant nor his family members were   getting any proper service inside their home and they forced to go outside to get the  network connection.   The complainant and his family members are availed with disrupted connectivity resulting sufferings of mental agony and hardship.  It is further alleged that the data connectivity was also very poor.  According to the complainant  his wife was  stranded  in the home  and mostly depended on  land line connection of  BSNL  and  the Wi-Fi  service  provided by it.  The complainant stated that he made complaints to the opposite party with regard to deficiency in service, but the opposite party did not take any steps to improve the network connection. Finally, the complainant registered a complaint with the opposite party  through a mobile number  as complaint No.31.287034400252. Even after registration of complaint, there was no improvement in network connection and the opposite party failed to take proper steps to rectify it.  It is averred that even though the opposite party agreed to provide booster facility near the residence of the complainant, but same was not materialised by the opposite party.   The men of opposite party also visited and convinced of the availability of poor network connection.  Due to the formality of re-porting of the connection, the complainant and his family are constrained to continue with the connection of the opposite party. Even at the time of Covid-19 pandemic period the opposite party did not care to provide proper network connectivity. As a result the online education of the children of the complainant was interrupted.  It is a further alleged by the complainant that , the opposite party  had  agreed  for a waiver  of one month mobile rental   charges and also  agreed to rectify the defects  by the beginning of August, the month of  2020.  The complainant was forced to file a complaint before the appellate authority of the service provider and consequently authorities of opposite party informed that defects would be rectified before 24/11/2020. But no action was taken by the opposite party.  According to the complainant he had paid a total of Rs. 12,100/- as per the bill issued by the opposite party.  But no service was provided by them.  The complainant prayed for a direction  to the opposite party to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the sufferings of  financial loss and mental agony due to the deficiency in service of the  opposite party.  It is also prayed by the complainant that a direction to be issued to the opposite party to provide foolproof   service connectivity and not to charge for the service unless and until the connectivity is made proper.  The complainant also prayed for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount already paid by him without availing service  from the opposite party. 

2.       The complaint is admitted and issued notice to the opposite party.   The opposite party entered appearance and filed version.   

3.    The opposite party  challenged  the contention made in the complaint and stated that complaint is not maintainable  either in law  or on facts.  According to the opposite party, the complainant approached the Commission by suppressing material facts and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.   The opposite party denied the allegation of the complainant that the representative of the opposite party approached him and persuaded for the portal of the mobile connectivity into the network of the opposite party.  It is stated by the opposite party that, there was no offer given to the complainant as alleged in the complaint.   The opposite party did not lure the complainant and his family members to port the mobile connection in to the network of the opposite party and no staffs was deputed for the same purpose.  The opposite party stated that the complainant on his own volition had decided to port into the network connectivity of the opposite party.     The averment that  after switching  to  the network connectivity of the opposite party  in January 26^th of  2020, the complainant noticed the coverage  provided by the opposite party was very poor compared to the earlier connection  used by the  complainant  is  without any basis and denied by the opposite party.  The opposite party also denied  the allegation of the  complainant that  the complainant  and his family members  were  not getting  any proper service  inside the house  and  they were forced to get out of their  residence  for  mobile network connectivity.  According to the opposite party all these allegations are incorrect and baseless.  The allegation of poor network and data connectivity also denied by the opposite party.   It is stated in the version that   the opposite party never agreed to provide booster facility at the place of residence of the complainant and there was no registration of complaint as alleged in the complaint.   But on the contrary as a part of goodwill the opposite party had offered to provide the facility of the booster, but same was refused by the complainant himself.  The averment  in the complaint that  during the time of Covid -19 pandemic  neither the complainant  nor his children  could make use of  mobile connectivity of the  opposite party  for their official  as well as educational needs  and  the peculiar situation as forced  the entire family  to pass through  a stage of  acute mental agony and financial  loss  is without  any basis  and denied by the opposite party.  The complainant is not entitled to get any  of the relief   sought  for  in the complaint  and prayed for  dismissal of the same.  

4.     The complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits and produced documents.  The document produced by the complainant are  marked as Ext. A1 series to Ext. A2 documents.  Ext. A1 series document consisted of tax invoices issued to the complainant  for availing  network service  from the opposite party.  Ext.A2 document is the copy of email communication made between the complainant and  the opposite party. The documents produced by the opposite party are marked as Ext.B1 to Ext. B13 documents.  Ext. B1 document is the copy of general power of attorney appointing Mrs. Sheena Samuel of Kerala, Telecom Circle of the opposite party as attorney  in this case.  Ext. B2 document is the  copy of tax invoice dated 18/02/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B3 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/03/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B4 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/04/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B5 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/05/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.   Ext. B6 document is the  copy of tax invoice dated 18/06/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.   Ext. B7 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/07/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B8 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/08/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B9 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/09/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext.B10 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/10/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Ext. B11 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/11/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party. Ext. B12 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/12/2020 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. B13 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/01/2021 issued to the complainant by the opposite party.    

5.  Heard both sides in detail.  Gone through documents availed for scrutiny of the evidence.  The Commission   considered the following points for adjudication:-

1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?
2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.(i) and (ii):-

       The grievance of the complainant was that when he ported his the mobile connection with the network of the opposite party, poor network connectivity was provided resulting financial loss and mental agony to the complainant.  It is alleged by the complainant that no attempt was made by the opposite party to rectify the defect and the complainant and his family were used to get outside the residence for using the mobile phone.  The complainant and family members of underwent interrupted network connectivity even during the time of Covid-19 pandemic as a result they were not able to attend business communications as well as online school classes.  It is averred by the complainant that he had remitted Rs. 12,100/- to the opposite party without proper use of mobile network.  The complainant produced the tax invoice issued by the opposite party and marked as Ext. A1 series documents.  Ext. A1 series documents consisted of 11 monthly tax invoices covering from 18/02/2020 to 18/01/2021 except the month of May.  The opposite party is also produced tax invoices including  in the month of  May, 2020 and those  invoices  and marked as Ext. B2 to Ext.B13 documents. The complainant also stated that he had registered a complaint before the opposite party but not rectified the complaint.  The complainant produced copy of email communication made between the complainant and the opposite party and same is marked as Ext. A2 document.  Ext. A2 document shows that there was a complaint with regard to   the network connectivity and the opposite party has agreed to rectify the defect.

7.     On the other hand, the opposite party denied all allegations raised by the complainant. It is contended by the opposite party that the network connectivity was good and there was no interruption to the connection. 

8.      In the analysis of evidence adduced by the parties in the case, the Commission find that the argument put forward by the complainant is more convincing and trustworthy than that of the opposite party.  The complainant averred that the network connectivity was poor and defective one and produced Ext. A2 document before the Commission to substantiate his contention.  It is also come out in the evidence that the complainant had repeatedly made complaints but did not take any action to improve the network connection by the opposite party.  Finally, the complainant registered a complaint with opposite party.  As a result, the opposite party given assurance to resolve the issue within 24/11/2020.  Ext. A2 document revealed the assurance made by the opposite party.  It is contended   by the complainant that the opposite party had offered to install booster to improve the connectivity and thereby provide uninterrupt connectivity to the complainant.  But the opposite party did not   take   any action to install booster as offered.  At the  same time the opposite party   admitted that as a party of good will  the  opposite party offered  to provide  the facility of booster,  but same  was refused by the  complainant himself.  The above  said  admission  of installation of booster  and contents  in Ext. A2 document  would  show that  the network  connectivity provided  by the opposite party was  poor and defective  and no action  was taken  to improve  the network  connection by the opposite party. It is argued by the complainant that he had ported the network connection into the network connectivity of the opposite party under the impression that there would be hassle free network.  The complainant also believed that the opposite party could provide 4G network data also.  But due to poor network and defective service he was deprived of service as promised.  The Commission consider the sufferings of mental agony and hardship due to the interrupted and poor quality of network provided by the opposite party.  It is also averred  by the complainant  that  he could  not make  use of the mobile  connection  for  his official  purpose and  his children  also deprived  of educational needs availed  through online. So Commission find that the act of the opposite party caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Moreover  Ext. A1 series document  and Ext.B2 to Ext.B13 documents (one  and same) would  explicitly reveal that the complainant had  made payment of bill  without failure, even though  he was provided  with failed  and defective  service.  So it can be find that the complainant had sustained financial  loss of Rs. 12,100/- as stated in the complaint. So the Commission is determined to favour the contention raised by the complainant.  The Commission find that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence complaint is allowed in the following manner:-

1. The opposite party is directed refund Rs. 12,100/-(Rupees Twelve thousand and one hundred only) to the complainant as the amount charged for disruptive and defective mobile network connection use.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the act of deficiency in service committed towards the complainant.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant  as the cost of the proceedings.

       The opposite  party  shall comply this order within  30 days   from the date of receipt of copy of this order otherwise the entire amount  shall carry 9% interest per annum  from the date of the  order to till realisation.

Dated this 31^st day of July, 2023.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                                : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                              : Ext.A1 & A2

Ext. A1: Series document consisted of bills issued to the complainant    for availing 

                network service  from the opposite party. 

Ext.A2 : Document is the copy of email communication made between the

               complainant and  the opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                               : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                             : Ext. B1 to B13

Ext. B1: Document   is the copy of general power of attorney appointing Mrs. Sheena

              Samuel of Kerala Telecom Circle of the opposite party as attorney in this

              case. 

Ext. B2: Document is the   copy of tax invoice dated 18/02/2020 issued to the

              complainant. 

Ext. B3: Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/03/2020 issued to the

              complainant. 

Ext. B4: Document  is the  copy of tax invoice dated 18/04/2020 issued to the     

             complainant. 

Ext. B5: Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/05/2020 issued to the

              complainant. 

Ext.B6: Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/06/2020 issued to the

             complainant. 

Ext. B7: Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/07/2020 issued to the

             complainant. 

Ext. B8 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/08/2020 issued to the

               complainant. 

Ext. B9 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/09/2020 issued to the

               complainant.

Ext.B10 : Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/10/2020 issued to the

                complainant. 

Ext.B11: Document is the copy of tax invoice dated 18/11/2020 issued to the

                complainant. 

Ext.B12: Document  is the  copy of tax invoice dated 18/12/2020 issued to the

               complainant. 

Ext.B13: Document  is the  copy of tax invoice dated 18/01/2021 issued to the

               complainant. 

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER