BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
FRIDAY, the 26th day of February, 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAIANT NO.2/2015
B.Bharathi, No.57, Kavikuil Street,
Lawspet, Puducherry. ………….. Complainant
Vs.
1. Head of Customer Care Division,
Reliance Communications Ltd.,
Reliance House, No.6, Haddows Road,
Nungampakkam, Chennai – 34.
2. The Manager, Reliance World,
V.M.Complext, No.172, Kamaraj Salai,
Puducherry.
3. The Branch Manager, Reliance
Communications Ltd., No.2, Peter
Nagar, Opposite to JK Tower,
Puducherry – 13. ………… Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN
PRESIDENT
TMT. K.K.RITHA,
MEMBER
THIRU S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE COMPLAINANT:
Complainant – Party in person
FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
M/s R.Balaji, J.Jayaraman,
Advocates, Puducherry subsequent set exparte
O R D E R
(By Hon'ble Justice President)
This complaint has been laid before us raising the following facts:
a) The second opposite party has provided the complainant the service of data card for internet usage on monthly rental basis. Thus, he is a consumer. He has got broad band line of BSNL for internet usage at home. He used the data card because he can use anywhere. He has to depend on data card for internet browsing. Hence he is using the data card for outside and at home use in addition to broadband line at his home. He is using the internet and e-mail services as mode of communication since it is fast and the postal method is almost out-dated. He has got matter before the High Court, Madras and hence to see the posting of his case and the cause list, the data card is very important
b) He has not get proper service from the last week of January, 2014 for internet usage. However, the data card of Reliance Communications Limited was not functioning well, Therefore, the complainant was put to mental agony and harassment. During the late night and early morning, the complainant cannot go out for internet browsing in the private internet café. Therefore, he was put under tremendous pressure.
c) he used the internet for video conferencing or meeting with his close relatives abroad using skype almost daily or alternate days. It almost come to an end for almost two months because of poor internet service. He cannot do video conference outside his home and to open e-mail outside his house because it is not secure. His commucations through e-mails and personal interactions using video conferencing came to an end in these two months. It is a personal loss to him and his family members.
d) He tried to rectify the problem contacting the sales office and he also took efforts to set right things, but it did not work. He was asked to bring the computer and data card to check it. The software engineer/chief technical attended to the problem, but it did not work. However, he was forced to settle the bill. The service provider did not listen to his problem. Hence it is a clear case of deficiency in service, as enumerated u/s 2(g) and defects u/s 2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The perusal of the various bills will clearly prove that his average internet usage was more than 1000 MB or 1 GB per month. From 25th December, 2013 to 24th January, 2014, the internet usage was 1,082 MB where as the internet usage for 25th January, 2014 to 24th February, 2014 is reduced to 357 MB and for the period 25th February, 2014 to 24th March, 2014, it was only 84 MB. The complainant could not log in the internet usage, even when he logged he can view only one or two pages.
e) It is not only a case of deficiency of service, but also intentional. At the instruction of some influential persons, he is put into trouble. He has also filed writ petition and also contesting the criminal case. Previously, his i/d was hacked and his documents stored were misused. Eventhough he gave a complaint, the Pondicherry Police refused to file F.I.R. The BSNL being public sector undertaking did not provide him the information on certain telephone numbers starting with 140 eventhough their customer using their landline and mobile phones. They did not attend to the problems. So, he has reason to believe that Reliance Communications Limited is intentionally stalled the internet browsing, using the data card that too particularly from February, 2014 onwards in order to put him in trouble.
f) He explained to the customer care section that the internet usage has gone down considerably during February and March. They also checked and found it to be true. He has also informed the sales section and customer care section that it is stalled intentionally.
g) A notice has been issued by the Reliance Communications Limited on 12.05.2014 forcing him to pay a sum of Rs.1,216/- in spite of repeated request for waiving the rental, for the period of poor service or no service of internet. They also threatened him by saying that criminal case will be filed under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. Hence, he is entitled for compensation not only for poor service rendered but also for mental agony caused by the legal notice. They adopted unfair trade practice by coercing him to pay the charges. Hence, the complaint has been laid.
2. Though the respondents have been served, they have not filed any response to the complainant. Hence, they have been set exparte. Later, an application was taken out by them to set aside the exparte order, which was dismissed on 10.12.2015. Since the said application is not maintainable before this Commission.
3. Thereupon, the matter was taken up for hearing the complainant/party in person. On behalf of the complainant, five documents have been filed which were marked as Exs.C1 to C5.
4. We have gone through the entire records including the documents filed at the instance of the complainant and also heard the complainant/party-in-person.
5. The following points are framed for consideration:
- Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties so as to award compensation to the complainant.
6. As far as the first point whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is concerned, we are of the view that under Section 2(d) of the Act, which states that any person who avails any service for consideration has to be considered as consumer. In the present case, the complainant has availed the service from Reliance Communications Limited, who also provided the service by providing data card with internet usage on a monthly rental basis. Hence, undoubtedly, the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(d) of the Act (hereinafter called the "Act"). Thus, we find that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Act and we hold this point in favour of the complainant.
7. As regards point No.2, it is the case of the complainant that he has availed the services from the opposite parties. His specific case was that he has availed the data card from the opposite parties and that though it was providing him service for two months, later, the service was very poor and he cannot down load many documents and judgements for approaching the High Court for filing writ petition. Though he was using the internet for video conference and meeting with close relatives almost daily or alternative days, it almost came to an end for two months and that he was unable to do video conferencing and meeting his family members and relatives. To deny his various allegations in this respect, the opposite parties have not come up any response though sufficient opportunities have been given to them.
8. That apart, the complainant was able to prove his case that he has approached the opposite parties many times by making complaints about the various allegations set out in the complaint. Ex.C2, dated 24.05.2014 is the complainant's e-mail to the customer care section, wherein he has pointed out that he did not get proper service even though he has paid money for the same. Further, he has stated in the said communication that he contacted the sales office several times and the problems are not rectified. We have come to the conclusion that the opposite parties have not sent any reply for the said complaints since the opposite parties have not filed any response and filed documents to substantiate that they sent reply for the e-mail sent by the complainant. Again, Ex.C3, dt.29.05.2014 was filed by the complainant making some allegations and also complaining that he need not pay any amount for the service not provided to him. This letter seems to have been sent to the customer care section of the Reliance Communications Limited, Pondicherry and the Xerox copy of the receipt for sending the said communication has been enclosed along with Ex.C3. The acknowledgement card also has been filed for the same. Even for this, there is nothing before us to show that the opposite parties have responded to the said communication. Ex.C4 is dated 12.05.2014 the notice from the opposite parties calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,216/- for the services rendered by them and also threatened that criminal proceedings under various provisions of Indian Penal Code will be launched without rectifying the defects pointed by him. It was followed by the communication from the advocate of the opposite parties dated 12.06.2014 raising the same issue as that of the letter under Ex.C4. Ex.C1 is the bills for the months of July, 13, August, 2013, December, 2013, January, 14 to March, 2014, and June, 2014.
9. The documents filed on behalf of the complainant especially, Exs.C2 and C3 will amply establish that the complainant was making complaints about poor services to the officials of opposite parties and there is nothing to show that the opposite parties have disputed the said statements of complainant made in Exs.C2 and C3. While that being so, the complainant was threatened by the communications under Exs C4 and C5 that he has to pay for the services not provided to him.
10. The discussions made above will amply establish that the complainant has established before us that though he has availed the services from the opposite parties, the services was not provided to him as it is expected from them. Unfortunately, there is nothing on record to disprove the statements made by the complainant. The opposite parties, who are in a position to disprove the same did not do so. Hence we have no other option but to come to the conclusion that the services provided to the complainant is not adequate and appropriate and that is nothing but deficiency in service.
11. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to a reasonable amount for the deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties. While deciding the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant, we are of the view that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs as compensation for deficiency in service for subjecting him to mental sufferings, humiliation, harassment and intimidation, personal suffering, defamatory and intimidatory allegations and the mental agony caused by such letters and actions. We are of the view that definitely, as we have discussed earlier, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and it would have definitely caused mental agony to the complainant. However with regard to the complaint made by the complainant that he was humiliated, harassed, etc. we are of the view that there is no enough material to substantiate the same.
12. Therefore, we are of the considered view, that it would be just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for deficiency in service caused by the opposite parties and that putting the complainant mental agony in view of such deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, inspite of the complainant approached them to rectify the defects.
13. In fine, we hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined u/s 2(d) of the Act and that he is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation from the opposite parties for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the mental agony caused to him by the opposite parties. The amount shall be paid within two months from to-day. Otherwise, it will carry an interest of 9% p.a. on expiry of two months till it is settled.
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2016
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S WITNESSES:
-NIL-
LIST OF COMPLAINANT'S EXHIBITS:
Ex.C1 – Letter and Bills for the months for July, 2013, August, 2013, December, 2013 to
March 2014 and June, 2014 issued by O.Ps.
Ex.C2 – Copy of e-mail, dt.24.05.2014 sent by the complainant to the customer care
section of O.P.No.3
Ex.C3 – Copy of Letter, dt.29.05.2014 by the complainant to the 3rd O.P. with postal receipt
and postal acknowledgement card
Ex.C4 – Copy of caution notice, dt.12.05.2014, issued by O.P.No.3 to the complainant
demanding to pay Rs.1,216/-
Ex.C5 – Copy of legal notice, dt.12.06.2014 issued to the complainantEx.C6 – Copy of
letter, dt.11.06.2009 by the 2nd complainant to the 1st opposite party
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESSES:
-NIL-
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES' EXHIBITS:
-NIL
(Justice K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(K.K.RITHA)
MEMBER
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
