KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURM APPEAL 11/04 JUDGMENT DATED.3.1.2008 (Against the order passed by the CDRF,Thiruvananthapuram,in OP.453/01) PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER 1. M/s.Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director Asianet Dataline Service, Centre Plaza, Vazhuthacaud, -- APPELLANTS Thiruvananthapuram. 2. The Managing director. (By Adv.Cherunniyoor P.Sasidharan Nair) Vs. G..Arun Govind, T.C.2/1887, Gowreesapattom, -- RESPONDENT Thiruvananthapuram-4. (by Adv.S.Reghukumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants/opposite parties in OP.453/01 are under orders to refund Rs.3110/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.1500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as costs. 2. The complainant had alleged that the high speed Internet connection provided to him by the opposite party was not having the speed as promised that their connection will be capable of delivering 500 times greater than fastest telephone modem. He paid a sum of Rs.4280 for the particular ADL high speed Cable Internet Connection on 12.2.2001. The complainant is a business executive by profession and the Internet connection was found to be of low speed and as it served no purpose the same was disconnected. 3. The opposite party asserted that the promised speed of 500 times greater than the fastest television modem is genuine. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the complainant Ext.P1 to P9, C1 and D1. 5. The expert commissioner, a person having B.Tech (Information technology) degree examined the system and filed Ext.C1 report which would show that the difference in speed with the promised speed was 2738.75 Kbps (Kilo Bytes per second). The inspection was conducted in the presence of both parties. The appellant had filed an objection to the commission report. It is mentioned that the speed will vary depending on the number of consumers and the quality of the instrument. We find that the appellant has not adduced any evidence in this regard before the Forum. The complainant was not cross examined also. In the circumstances, we find that there is nothing to doubt that genuines of Ext.C1 report of the expert commissioner. It is further pointed out that subsequently the appellant has issued a brochure mentioning that the Internet connection will be having the twice speed of the fastest Television modem. According to respondent/complainant the second brochure ie. Ext.P9 itself bely the claim of the appellant as in the first Ext.P1 brochur the claim is 500 times the speed.. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that appellant did not get opportunity to adduce evidence. It was also contended that the appellant had filed application seeking opportunity to cross examine the commissioner. But we find on verification that no such application has been filed before the Forum. We find that there no scope for interference in the order of the Forum. The appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER s/L | 
