BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.290 of 2018.
Date of institution: 26.10.2018.
Date of decision:05.08.2019.
Sanjeev Kumar aged 45 years, son of Sh. Ruldu Ram, resident of House No.660/3, Subhash Nagar, Khurana Road, Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Jio Care/Centre Karnal-Kaithal Road, Gobind Colony, Adarash Nagar, Kaithal (Haryana)-136027.
- Reliance Jio Head Office, Reliance Corporate Park, No.8 A Wing, Ist Floor, 5 TTC Industrial Area, Thane Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai-400701.
….Respondents.
Before: Sh. D.N.Arora, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Sh. Gaurav Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Sanjeev Moudgil, Advocate for the OPs.
ORDER
D.N.ARORA, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that the complainant is an Advocate by profession and having a 4G Jio Sim bearing No.7988656385 and he used to recharge the said sim as per the plan of Ops of Rs.399/-. It is alleged that since purchase of the above-said 4G sim, the complainant is suffering of slow speed of internet and many places, the range of above-said sim is low. It is further alleged that the complainant made complaints through e-mail at Jio-care.com on 07.09.2018, 15.10.2018 and 19.10.2018 but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; that the complainant is estopped by own conduct because it is hard to understand as to why an individual would recharge when the said individual complaints qua the services being provided; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. On merits, it is stated that as per the survey done by the engineer in the vicinity where the complainant is residing, the speed was found to be varying from <2 mbps to 4 mbps; that the area where the complainant is residing is dense/congested and there can be intermittent speed issues especially at peak hours; that the allegation made by the complainant qua slow speed of internet may also arise due to geographical and technical constraints, which are beyond the control of Telecom Service provider and addressing such issues can take considerable time. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C6 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Annexure-R1 and Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Undisputedly, the complainant is having a 4G Jio Sim bearing No.7988656385 and he used to recharge the said sim as per the plan of Ops of Rs.399/-. The dispute between the parties is that according to the complainant, since purchase of the above-said 4G sim, the complainant is suffering of slow speed of internet and many places, the range of above-said sim is low. The grievance of the complainant is that he made complaints through e-mail at Jio-care.com on 07.09.2018, 15.10.2018 and 19.10.2018 but the Ops did not redress the grievances of complainant.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops contended that as per the survey done by the engineer in the vicinity where the complainant is residing, the speed was found to be varying from <2 mbps to 4 mbps. He has placed reliance upon the report Annexure R1 in this regard.
7. We have perused the case file. The complainant made complaint through e-mail on 07.09.2018 Annexure C2 regarding the slow speed of internet but the Ops did not take any action. The complainant again made complaint on 15.10.2018 vide service request SR00000RP2Q2 and the Ops intimated the complainant that the problem of slow speed of internet will be removed within 48 hours but the same was not removed till 19.10.2018. The complainant again sent e-mail dt. 19.10.2018 Annexure C3 regarding slow internet speed and the Ops send the e-mail and mentioned that they will enhance the network at the location of complainant. This may take upto 120 days, they will kept him updated as they progress on the installation of a new site start from 15.10.2018. But inspite of that, the above-said network problem was not resolved by the Ops. The complainant has also placed on file another e-mails Annexure C4 and Annexure C5 regarding the slow speed of internet. So, from the said e-mails, it is clear that the complainant was suffering from slow speed of internet. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant is an Advocate and we are of the view that now-a-days, the internet facility is very necessary and the complainant has been deprived to work on the internet and he also became handicapped due to not downloading the important documents and could not conversant with the latest law within time. So far as the report Annexure R1 is concerned, the Ops have not mentioned the specific date that on which date, the survey was conducted by the Ops and the report was made on which date. So, this report is not helpful to the Ops. Moreover, the Ops have also admitted in the e-mail dt. 19.10.2018 Annexure C3 that they will enhance the network problem within 120 days. It can easily be taken an admission on the part of Ops regarding their poor network facility even by way of making the offer as mentioned above but the Ops have not resolved the grievances of complainant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the loss is not only suffered by the complainant being lawyer but also their clients. In this way, the complainant has suffered harassment as-well-as mental agony due to deficiency in service by way of not providing the better services of network to the complainant.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to improve the data speed/network problem and sim range. Although there is no fixed criteria for assessing the loss suffered by the complainant in such cases. So, we deem fit to award Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order. A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:05.08.2019.
(D.N.Arora)
President.
(Suman Rana), (Rajbir Singh)
Member Member.
