Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/95/2018

Mr.R.Baskaradoss. S/o.S.Ramadoss - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hathway cable & Data Co Limited Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

R.Baskaradoss

09 Dec 2021

ORDER

 

                                                                     Complaint presented on : 30.08.2018

                                                                       Date of disposal            : 09.12.2021

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.               : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.95/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 09^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                                

Mr.R.Baskaradoss,

S/o S.Ramadoss,

Block No.VI, Floor No.5,

Door No.4 “Pace Prana”,

109, Padikuppan Road,

Anna Nagar West Extension,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1.Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Regd. Office,

“Rhejas”, 4^th Floor, Main Avenue,

Santacruz (W),

Mumbai – 400 054, Maharashtra.

 

2.The Nodal Officer,

Hathway Cable & Datacom Limited,

No.83, Bascon Maeru Towers, 5^th Floor,(Amended as per the order

•  

Kodambakkam High Road,CMP.No.30/2019 Deleted)

•  

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.R.Baskaradoss

Counsel for 1^st opposite party                 : M/s.R.Palaniandavan and another

ORDER

 

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to refund a sum of Rs.2,263/-  and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to a sum of Rs.10,000/-  cost of the complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant subscribed Fibenet Internet connection with the opposite party’s company viz., “Hathway” at complainant’s residential address at Door.No.464/10 TNHB Quarters, 7^th main road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040 with effect from 20.01.2018- vide Account No.1154838352 and  paid a sum of Rs.1620/- in advance towards Prepaid Rental Charges and Refundable security deposit of Rs.400+GST vide cheque No.970097 dated 16.01.2018. The complainant  was regularly paid the bill amount in advance every month. On 27.06.2018 the complainant made a pre-payment rental amount for three months period commencing from 27^th June 2018 to 26^th September 2018, but due to personal reasons, the complainant was unable to continue in the same premises and had shifted his residence from the aforesaid address to block No.VI, Floor No.5, Door No.4, “Pace Prana”. No.109, Padikuppam Road, Anna Nagar West Extension, Chennai – 600  040 on 14.07.2018 and requested the opposite parties to relocate his internet service connection to the aforesaid complainant’s new residential address. Inspite of his repeated requests made, his requests/complainants were closed without any reply/intimation. The complainant came to know through his calls that there is no service in his new residential apartment (about 200 flats) and the opposite party was unable to  give connection by shifting from his old house to the newly shifted house. Therefore the complainant has requested to refund the caution deposit amount as well as the advance rental amount paid for the period from 15.07.2018 to 26.09.2018 immediately to him. So far the complainant has not received the aforesaid refund amount but sent a bill for payment of October 2018 month rental amount. Delay in refund of the advance rental amount and security deposit shows the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant was severally affected. The product or service purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties was not at all utilized for the period from 15^th July 2018 onwards to till date. The false assurance given by the opposite parties, their customer care, their service engineers, etc. caused mental agony and injury to the complainant.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE 1^st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party denies all the allegations/averments as mentioned in the complaint filed in the above case, save those that are specifically admitted. Hathway Cable & Datacom Ltd., the 1^st opposite party herein, is one of India’s leading cable and Broadband service provider. The 1^st opposite party holds a Pan-India ISP license and was the first cable television services provider to offer High-speed cable broadband services across 16 cities (4 metros and 3 mini metros), having  almost a million subscribers as on date. During January 2018, the complainant applied for a availing internet connection, from the 1^st opposite party and submitted his customer Registration Form on 16.01.2018 for the service to be provided to his residence at Door No.464/10, TNHB Quarters, 7^th  Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai – 600 040. The 1^st opposite party herein provided internet service connection to the satisfaction of the complaint as per his request at his residence as mentioned above. After a few months, the complainant requested for relocation of internet connection stating that he had changed his residence. The 1^st opposite party gave confirmation for relocation on the basis that the new location was also serviced by the 1^st opposite party as its connections and network were available in that area. However, the Residents Association of the new apartment complex (Pace Prana) to which the complainant had shifted, denied permission to the personnel of the 1^st opposite party to lay cables  and put up necessary infrastructures in the premises. The complainant was informed about this problem immediately. However, despite being informed, instead of securing permission from the  said Residents Association the complainant, with malafide intent, kept raising online complaints on a continuous basis for transfer of internet connection on the online portal of the 1^st opposite party during the period of July – August 2018. These so-called online complaints were being intentionally and mischievously raised in spite of  the complainant being clearly intimated by the 1^st opposite party about non-receipt of permission from the  Residents Association. The 1^st opposite party was unable to provide the internet service connection to the complainant as the Residents Association denied permission to the personnel of the 1^st opposite party to set up necessary infrastructures. The customer  Registration Form (CRF) which has been duly filled in and signed by the complainant contains the terms and conditions which are binding on the complainant as well as the 1^st opposite party. One such condition is that payment  is made on a “Prepaid Basis” i.e. payment is made in advance for a fixed period of time which can be, 1 month, 2 month, 3 months or even more. The terms mentioned in the  Customer Registration Form further clearly mentions that no refund shall be made in the prepaid model of payments. With regard to the claim for refund of Security Deposit the  Customer Registration Form clearly states that the refund of Security Deposit of Rs.400/- shall be made only if the customer retains the services of the 1^st opposite party for a period of three years. Admittedly the complainant did not retain the services of the 1^st opposite party for a period of three years and therefore he is not entitled for refund of Security Deposit. Further, it is clearly mentioned that there shall be no refund in the case of pre-paid customers such as the complainant and also that the security deposit will only be refunded if the customer retains the services of the 1^st opposite party for a period of three years which in the instant matter, the complainant has not. The 1^st opposite party is providing internet service connection in the locality where the complainant presently shifted. Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for refund of caution deposit amount and  refund of unutilized advance rental amount?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?
4.  To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

4. POINT NO. 1 TO 3

The complainant, when he was residing at door No.464/10 TNHB Quarters 7^th Main Road Anna Nagar, Chennai – 40 paid a sum of Rs.1,620/- towards pre paid rental charges and refundable security of Rs.400/- on 16.01.2018 and got an internet connection from the 1^st opposite party.The complainant used the pre paid internet connection from March 2018 to 14.07.2018. The complainant on 27.06.2018made a free paid rental amount of Rs.2,828/- for three months from 27.06.2018 to 26.09.2018. The complainant shifted his residence from TNHB quarters to Block No.6 Floor No.5, Door No.4 “Pace Prana” No.109 Padi Kuppam Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai 40 on 14.07.2018 and requested the 1^st opposite party to relocate his internet service connection to the above said new residential address. The 1^st opposite party initially informed the complainant there will be no problem for relocating the service connection to the new address. But the 1^st opposite party unable to relocate the internet connection to the complainant new Residential Address because the Residence Association of the new apartment complex (Pace Prana) denied permission to the 1^st opposite party to lay cables and put up necessary infrastructure in the premises. Therefore the 1^st opposite party unable to provide internet service connection to the complainant new residential address.

05. The complainant alleged that the 1^st opposite party as given false assurance and thereby caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant further alleged the attitude of the 1^st opposite party by not relocating the internet service connection to the new address amount to unfair trade practice and complainant is entitled for compensation. On the other hand the 1^st opposite party contended that they are unable to provide the internet service connection to the complainant as the residence association denied permission to the 1^st opposite party to lay cables and to set up necessary infrastructure.

06. The complainant enjoys the internet connection till he was Residing at TNHB Quarters. The complainant shifted his Residence at “Pace Prana”, Padi Kuppam Road, Anna Nagar West and requested to relocate the internet connection to his new residence on 14.07.2018. The new residence of the complainant situated in an apartment consisting of several blocks. Further the said apartment has been maintained by registered housing association. The 1^st opposite has to lay cables and other infrastructure for providing internet connection to the complainant‘s apartment after getting necessary permission from the apartment association. But, the apartment  Resident Association refused to grant permission to the 1^st opposite party to lay cables. Therefore the 1^st opposite party is unable to re-locate the internet connection to the complainant’s new address. The above attitude of the 1^st opposite party is not amounts to deficiency in service.

07. The complainant in this complaint request for refund of caution deposit amount of Rs.400 and also refund of Rs.2,263/- being the unutilized advance rental amount. The complainant paid Rs.2,828/-towards pre-paid rental amount for three months from 27.06.2018 to 26.09.2018. The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant signed the terms and conditions in the registration form and terms and conditions are binding to the complainant and therefore as per the terms and conditions the payment made an advance shall not be refundable. The 1^st opposite party further contended the security deposit of Rs.400/-shall not be refundable, if the complainant did not retain the service for a period of three years and here the complainant used the connection only for one year and request for refund security amount and therefore complainant is not entitled for refund.

08. The complainant paid Rs.2,828/- being the pre-paid rental advance charges for three months from 27.06.2018 to 26.09.2018. The complainant paid the said amount in advance but the complainant used the internet connection only upto 14.07.2018 and thereafter the complainant has not used the internet connection and request to relocate the internet connection. But the 1^st opposite party unable to relocate the internet connection. Therefore 1^st opposite party is liable to refund the rental advance payment for the unused period to the complainant. The complainant is entitled for refund two months pre rental payment which comes to 1,884/-.

09. The complainant filed Ex.A1 tariff plan issued by 1^st opposite party in which it is stated refundable security deposit of Rs.400/- + GST. So, the 1^st opposite party himself admitted that the security of Rs.400 is refundable. Whereas the 1^st opposite party filed Ex.B2 stating that as per terms and conditions the refundable security deposit of Rs.400/- will not be refundable in case there is disconnection within three years period. But here in the complaint there is no disconnection, the complainant, since shifted residence requested the 1^st opposite party to relocate the internet connection. Hence, the question of disconnection does not arise. The above said condition is not applicable to the complainant. Therefore the 1^st opposite party is liable to refund the security amount of Rs.400/- to the complainant. The attitude of the 1^st opposite party in denying to refund the above said amount to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Under these circumstances there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and complainant is entitled for refund for Rs.1884+400 =2284 from the 1^st opposite party. Further the complainant is entitled for compensation for Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.3,000/- .

10. POINT NO:4

    In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st opposite party is directed to refund a total sum of Rs.2,284/(Two thousand two hundred and eighty four only) being the unutilized pre paid rental charges and caution deposit to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party furtherdirect to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand only) towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Three thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings, to the complainant.

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.      

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 09^th day of  December  2021.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1  Copy of Brochure issued by the opposite parties

Ex.A2 Copy of the service requests made by the complainant to the opposite  

             parties to relocate the internet service connection and its closure details

 

Ex.A3 Copy of Legal Notice dated 18.08.2018 sent by the complainant to the  

            opposite parties by Registered post

 

Ex.A4   Copy of Legal Notice dated 18.08.2018 sent by the complainant to the

             opposite parties by E-mail on 19.08.2018

 

Ex.A5  Proof of delivery of Registered post sent to the opposite parties dated 23^rd

             and 24^th August 2018

 

Ex.A6  Copy of E-mail sent to the customer care of the opposite parties dated   

             27.08.2018 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 Dated NIL           Board Resolution

 

Ex.B2  Dated NIL          Customer Registration Form

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT