DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of July, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 17/02/2023
CC/53/2023
Akhil Kumar Menon,
Aami’s heaven,
Opp-Water Tank,
Mattumantha Jn.
Palakkad.
(By Party in person) - Complainant
V/s
Jio Communications Limited.,
Palakkad Branch,
Near Max Showroom,
Kalmandapam,
Palakkad. - Opposite party (Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
The complainant is consumer of the opposite party using their broad band connection. His grievance is about the non availability of internet connection. Inspite of his complaint with the customer care of the opposite party and possible escalations, the issue remained unsolved. According to him, when he visited the Jio Centre he got a reply as follows “We can’t resolve the issue on permanent basis as the connection location is outside their preview, Jio Fibre are not providing services in this area and installation was taken by their previous employee team without following the norms of Jio fibre”. They also advised him to go for disconnection as the issue cannot be solved permanently. Even his last service request dated 15/02/23 was closed by them without intimating him or resolving the issue. Hence this complaint seeking refund of Rs.7500/- being the payment made sofar to the opposite party, Rs.30,000/- as opportunity cost & Rs.22500/- towards cost.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party, they did not enter appearance and hence was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 & A2 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the screen shot of service request and its status and A2 is the copy of email communication sent to the opposite party.
4. Whatever be the reasons qùoted, having given the connections and collected the charges it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to ensure interruption free internet facility to the complainant. In the present case, the opposite party failed, not only in providing the service as promised but in attending to the service requests in time inspite of repeated correspondence, as can be seen from Ext.A1 & A2. In the last instance, the complaint was closed without any intimation to the complainant or resolving the issue. This amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Further the opposite party did not utilize the opportunity given by this Commission to defend their case.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following reliefs.
- The opposite party is liable to refund Rs.7500/- being the charges collected from the complainant along with interest @ 10% from 01/12/2021 till date of payment.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency in service and related mental agony &
- Rs. 10,000/- as cost.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 19th day of July, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext. A1 : Copy of the screen shot of service request and its status.
Ext. A2 : Copy of email communication sent to the opposite party.
Exhibits marked from the side of the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined from the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined from the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
Cost : 10,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
