1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner, Ashok P.Shahani, against the order dated 23.02.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.FA/14/175.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that in the year 2005-2006 petitioner approached the respondent for the connection of two broad band services.  On 5^th June, 2011 due to heavy rains and lightning the modem of the petitioner as provided by the respondent was damaged.  Also the petitioner’s laptop stopped working and got damaged.  On 7^th June, 2011, a complaint was lodged by the petitioner for the change of modem.  On 9^th June, 2011, the petitioner again lodged a complaint ticket bearing no.5727367.  On 9^th June, 2011, the respondent company claimed that they had resolved the problem. The petitioner has alleged that till 13th June, 2011, the problem for the both the internet connections i.e. 97075 and 460055 was not resolved.  The petitioner was left with no choice but to send legal notice to the respondent. On 15^th June, 2011, the respondent company received the legal notice.  On 15^th June, 2011 they rectified the problem of one internet line bearing account number 97075.  On 22^nd June, 2011, finally the respondent replaced the modem of Account number 460055.  On 7^th October, the petitioner being aggrieved by the services of the respondent and because of their pathetic service due to which his laptop had got destroyed, he filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai (in short the District Forum).  On 26^th February, 2014, the District Forum allowed the complaint.  In March, 2014 being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent preferred an appeal before the State Commission.  On 23^rd February, 2015 State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondent. 

3.      Hence the revision petition.

4.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.  Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the modem did not have the capacity to withhold the surge of electric current from passing through it and reaching the laptop.  Thus, the laptop was damaged.  It was the duty of the opposite party to have given the information that what kinds of precaution are required in such cases.  No such information was provided.  It was the duty of the opponent to caution their clients regarding the same but the complainant was not cautioned.  Due to surge of electricity caused by lightening, the current passed through the modem and damaged the laptop.   Learned counsel stated that in the reply affidavit filed by the opposite party, they have clearly admitted that after checking the problem, the Radio Frequency team concluded that the modem was faulty.   Thus, the learned counsel emphasised that if default in modem has been admitted, on what basis the opposite party could escape their liability.  The deficiency is clearly proved.  The State Commission has not appreciated the facts, whereas, the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint.

5.      On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/ opposite party stated that when the internet services were originally provided, the following condition was clearly mentioned in the Welcome Kit supplied to the complainant:-

“All customers are requested to disconnect the LAN cable from their PCs while not in use especially during rains & lightning since it is possible that some damage may be caused to the hardware.  The customer would be liable to repair the damages caused to their PCs on their own due to any such natural calamities.” 

6.      From the above, it is clear that it was the duty of the complainant to have disconnected his connection from modem.  Therefore, if any damage has occurred, it was due to negligence of the complainant himself and the service provider is not responsible.  The District Forum has not correctly appreciated this provision, whereas, the State Commission has rightly allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.  The learned counsel further emphasised that the portion written in the affidavit in reply that the radio frequency team found modem defective, was part of the call and it was stated by the complainant over phone, as would be clear by reading the whole sentence, which ends with “call was closed”.  There is no admission that modem was faulty.

7.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the material on record.  It is seen from the record that a Welcome Kit supplied at the time of instalment of internet connection contained a provision regarding advice at the time of lightning, which has been quoted by the learned counsel for the respondent.  Moreover, lightning is an act of God and respondent is not responsible for electrical surge due to lightning as the precautionary advice was already given by the respondent and that the internet connections worked satisfactorily for more than three years and the damaged modem was replaced in time.  Thus deficiency on the part of the respondent is not proved.

8.      Based on the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 23.02.2015 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1497 of 2015 having no merit is dismissed.