IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated, the 29^th day of July, 2024

Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President

  Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto. Member

C C No. 184/2021 (Filed on 28.03.2023)

O R D E R

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

The first opposite party is the Cable operator of broadband service providers  BSNL, Asianet and Kerala Vision of the locality of the complainant. The second opposite party is a service provider of Internet and cable TV services. The third opposite party is the service provider of Telecommunications of Central Government. The complainant subscribed The service of Kerala Vision Broadband on 27.05.2019 by giving all the documents required by 2^nd opposite party under the assurance of uninterrupted services from the 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party  by paying ₹ 5,500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) including advance rent, charges of modem, digital cable receiver, installation charge, optical fibre cable charge and other expenses. 1^st opposite party  and 2^nd opposite party  received the rent from 20.06.2021 to 19.07.2021 in advance. The Broadband connection of the complainant was disconnected on 30.06.2021 without any notice and 1^st opposite party  informed him that he should purchase a device optical network terminal (ONT) from the 1^st opposite party  by paying ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) otherwise further service could not be given. The complainant purchased 1 GPON ONT (Netlink) and approached 1^st opposite party for further service but informed that the said ONT was not according to the OLT (optical line termination) of 1^st opposite party  and hence they were not ready to render their service. Opposite party was not ready to give further information about appropriate ONT and when the complainant approached opposite party he got the reply to contact LCO.

Thereafter 1^st opposite party didn’t accept the advance payment of rent and denied the opportunity for recharging the connection of the complainants subscriber account KB31A0370118 and permanently disconnected on 19.07.2021. Though the complainant approached 1^st opposite party several times for the reconnection of the broadband connection they did not heed and so the complainant approached 3^rd opposite party for alternate arrangement. 3^rd opposite party  approved the application and started taking rent from the complainant but even after the direction from the 3^rd opposite party, 1^st opposite party hesitated to give connection to the complainant. The complainant purchased Netlink DACONT and BSNL, Chinagavanam directed the 1^st opposite party to give the connection but 1^st opposite party did not give the connection, thus deficient in their service.

The act of the 1^st opposite party to disconnect the complainants Kerala Vision Internet connectivity with the help of 2^nd opposite party  only for the reason of not purchasing the ONT Modem from them caused several hardships to the complainant. As there was only online learning in the Covid-19 period, due to the act of the opposite party the children of the complainant were denied of the opportunity for learning. The complainant who worked for the Central Government in handling the GST project of its financial department through online had lost his job and his livelihood was stopped. The parents of the complainant were denied of the opportunity to video call their son who was abroad in the period of Covid -19. The complainant who was engaged in online trading had to face a huge loss in that also.

The complainant lodged several complaints in the website of the 2^nd opposite party and through E-mail but no response from the 2^nd opposite party. Thereafter he sent legal notice to the opposite party which was also unanswered. The complainant further complained to the Honourable Chief Minister of Kerala and as a result on 19.07.2021 the office of the Kottayam District Collector asked for the reason to the 1^st opposite party for not giving connection to the account which was commissioned on 07.07.2021. 1^st opposite party  reconnected the broadband connection of the complainant on the next day itself. The 1^st opposite party  started to collect the rent from the complainant from 24.07.2021.

On 26.07.2021 the complainant was informed by 2^nd opposite party through SMS that the existing plan could not be renewed as the new plan with more specifications was ready for renewal. The 1^st opposite party has monopolised the broadband connectivity in the area being the one and only service provider for all the broadband service providers and is trying to impose their plans on the customers. The 2^nd opposite party is unaware of the service of the LCO and the matters regarding rent etc. The opposite parties who were expected to have acted responsibly in the pandemic period had wilfully disconnected the internet connection of the complainant and caused several hardships to him and his family.

Thus the complaint is filed against the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties by disconnecting the internet connection seeking direction to receive the monthly rent by 2^nd opposite party  from all the customers of 2^nd opposite party, to return the rent amount collected for the period from 30.06.2021 to 19.07.2021 ₹ 366/-(Rupees three hundred and sixty six only), to direct the 3^rd opposite party to return the rent of disconnection period ₹ 174/- (Rupees one hundred and seventy four only) along with compensation of ₹ 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) and cost of ONT and WIFI router and rent  ₹ 7,007/-(Rupees seven thousand seven only).

The opposite parties were noticed and they appeared and filed version.

The 1^st opposite party contended that the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint as the connection was in the name of his father. The 1^st opposite party has never received any advance rent amount or charges for modem, digital cable receiver, installation charge, price of optical fibre cable amounting to ₹ 5,500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred only) from the complainant. The 1^st opposite party had never disconnected the internet connection in the name of the father of the complainant on any said date or never demanded to buy the ONT Modem from the 1^st opposite party for              ₹ 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only).

The first opposite party has never received any amount from the complainant or his father towards the internet connection but the complainant had been paying the rent only after the usage of one month. The monthly receipts produced by the opposite party in the name of PS communication cable network #1605 dated 06.06.2021 issued to the complainant’s father for the rent for the period of from 21.05.2021 to 19.06.2021. The invoice No. 21-22/06/0267070 issued for the amount paid from the account of 1^st opposite party  to 2^nd opposite party which was downloaded from the website of the 2^nd opposite party and produced by the complainant in order to mislead the Commission. In the pandemic the complainant informed the first opposite party that due to the over usage of internet the internet speed was lowered and the complainant was informed that the modem used by the complainant at that time was not sufficient to give such speed and to get more speed he had to replace the OLT and modem of Philip in their own expense. The complainant agreed that. The 1^st opposite party informed all consumers by April 2021 that to increase the network speed they were going to upgrade the system and accordingly all the consumers should replace the existing modem to an upgraded version and all the consumers agreed to that. Thereafter when the OLT was upgraded all the consumers except the complainant replaced their old modem with new one at their own cost. Those who had replaced the modem acquired speedy internet. On 03.06.2021 when the first opposite party approached the complainant to replace his modem he informed that the single band dual antenna modem which the 1^st opposite party had was not sufficient for the purpose of the complainant but he needed one dual band modem which was not available with the 1^st opposite party. Then the complainant told the 1^st opposite party, that he himself would buy the modem and inform the 1^st opposite party but when the 1^st opposite party contacted the complainant for updates he did not reply. It is denied that the 1^st opposite party refused to receive the advance rent because the complainant had never paid the rent in advance. The invoice produced by the complainant for ₹ 309/- (Rupees three hundred and nine only) was paid by 1^st opposite party  to 2^nd opposite party as invoice No. 21-22/06/0267070 as the advance payment for the complainant’s connection for the month of July. When the complainant was asked to pay the said amount and cable TV subscription fee to a total of ₹ 550/- (Rupees five fifty only) the complainant paid only ₹ 240/- (Rupees two hundred and forty only). As the complainant didn’t pay ₹ 310/- (Rupees three hundred and ten only) towards the subscription fee for the internet connection on 19.07.2021 the internet connection was disconnected and only cable TV network continued. But on the request of the complainant on 24.07.2021 the internet connection was reconnected but no payment was made by the complainant till date. All the allegations against this 1^st opposite party is false. The real facts are on 08.07.2021 3^rd opposite party  contacted 1^st opposite party  as per the request of the complainant number 1272-839-5187 127283963645 and enquired that whether the father of the complainant and P.P Philip could be given BSNL connection if he replaced the modem and 1^st opposite party informed the willingness to JTO, Chingavanam. On 09.07.2021 the JTO, Chingavanam contacted 1^st opposite party and asked the configurations required for the new modem and 1^st opposite party  transferred the same on 10.07.2021. JTO, Chingavanam contacted the 1^st opposite party and enquired if the complainant purchased the modem of the said configuration whether he could be given the internet connection. 1^st opposite party has intimated the JTO that the connection could be given to the complainant if he purchased the modem of the required specifications. On 15.07.2021 JTO again contacted the first opposite party and demanded to reconnect the Internet connection of the complainant as he purchased the modem. On 16.07.2021 accordingly 1^st opposite party reached the complainant’s house and the complainant asked 1^st opposite party  to install new optical cable and give the connection of 3^rd opposite party  as he wanted to continue the existing internet connection of 2^nd opposite party. The complainant informed 1^st opposite party  that he had purchased GPON dual band modem in order to use both the connections of 2^nd opposite party  and 3^rd opposite party. For installing the cable connection as per the request of the complainant 1^st opposite party requested the service of optical slicer staff and it was informed that optical slicer would come and install on nineteen seven and accordingly on 19.07.2021 the new optical line pair was given activated. All these facts were informed to 3^rd opposite party  and 1^st opposite party.

On 19.07.2021 when 1^st opposite party reached the complainant’s house to reconnect the internet connection the complainant told him that he would install the connection by himself if the username and password would be transferred to him and accordingly 1^st opposite party transferred the same and on 20.07.2021 the connection was reconnected on the new modem. The 1^st opposite party had incurred a loss of ₹ 1,500/- (Rupees one thousand and five hundred only) for the installation of new optical line pairing for the complainant but he did not ask the complainant to pay the same. The first opposite party never demanded to buy modem from them to the complainant or any other customers. It was informed prior to the installation to all the consumers that they could buy any modem which support the OLT. The connection in the name of the complainant’s father was not disconnected for two months only because the payment was made by the 1^st opposite party from his own account to protect the connection from disconnection even though the complainant and his father made default in the payment of subscription. The complainant threatened 1^st opposite party that he was working in the GST, Department and if he was not given the modem free of cost he would inspect the institution of 1^st opposite party  and impose fine. All the allegations regarding the hardships caused by the disconnection of the internet are false as the complainant himself had said that he had charged all the mobiles of the family members for internet usage and it was not interrupted. The complainant failed to preserve the internet connection by paying the subscription amount promptly and by purchasing required modem on time and for the consequences the 1^st opposite party is not liable. The complaint lodged before the Honourable Chief Minister and Education Minister was dismissed on the finding that it was a baseless complaint. When the 1^st opposite party was contacted from the office of the District Collector, 1^st opposite party  replied promptly and the complaint given to Chingavanam Police Station was closed as baseless. The statement that on 07.07.2021 the complainant was given BSNL connection is false and only to mislead the Commission. It is evident from the documents produced by the complainant that he had purchased the modem only on 14.07.2021 for the BSNL  connection. As stated in the complaint the complainant used the internet connection of 2^nd opposite party  till 30.06.2021 and hence the statement that the complainant spent ₹ 1,807/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred and seven only) for the internet connection of the month of June is not correct. The first opposite party is keeping good relationship with his consumers till date. For all the hardships and losses caused to the complainant, he himself is responsible and the first opposite party is not at all liable in any way for the losses suffered by him. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party and no relief could be granted to the complainant hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The 2^nd opposite party filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd opposite party and no evidence has been produced in this respect to prove that he has availed broadband services of the 2^nd opposite party. The invoices produced by the complainant are not generated in the name of the complainant. 2^nd opposite party has engaged facilitators in all areas so as to provide quality broadband services at the end of the customers. First opposite party is one such facilitator in the service area of the subject issue. The issues raised by the customers are put to respective facilitators. The complainant without contacting the concerned facilitator that is first opposite party kept on changing the service providers and availed various connections. Without taking the advice as to the services provided by the 2^nd opposite party and the devices necessary for availing such services the complainant procured various devices at his cost to which second opposite party is not liable for. 2^nd  opposite party has not directed the complainant to purchase GPON ONT  as the opposite party is providing the ONT which is compatible with the OLT used for providing broadband services. It is the complainant herein who availed GPON ONT which is not compatible with the OLT of the service provider thereby the cost alleged to be incurred by the complainant is not a consequence of the failure in service on the part of the second opposite party. The complainant procured the alleged devices and availed services from other service providers without the knowledge of the 2^nd opposite party and hence 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay the alleged compensation to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party cannot change the OLT for one customer thereby interrupting the quality of services provided to other customers. Thus the complainant has no cause of action for filing this complaint against 2^nd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

The 3^rd opposite party  filed version through its Assistant General Manager legal contending that no complaint would lie against BSNL before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission as per the decision of Honourable Supreme Court. The complainant has no cause of action against the 3^rd opposite party. The connection referred in the complaint is not in the name of the complainant but in the name of one P.P Philip, Koodathinkal House, Kurichi. The application for BSNL FTTH connection was received at BSNL office on 07.07.2021 and the order creation connection creation parts in system at BSNL end was completed on 08.07.2021 itself. Currently BSNL extends fibre connections to its FTTH customers through its franchise partners mainly LCO s. M/s PS Communications, Kurichi, Kottayam is the franchise partner for providing FTTH connections in the area. For providing FTTH connections BSNL provides bandwidth connectivity to the LCO from their exchange. Extending the connection from the exchange to their OLT and from OLT to customer premises is done by the LCO which involves steps that depend on the equipments installed by them, the optical power distribution plan, modification of existing cable network based on new customer leads etc. Also the customer is required to procure a modem ONT which is compatible with the OLT of the LCO either from LCO or from market for completing the provisioning of connection which in this case was done on 15.07.2021. Finally the provisioning of connection was completed on 20.07.2021 only four days was taken for completion of the provisioning of connection. As evident from the statement of the petitioner himself BSNL has made every effort to provide the connection at the earliest by properly communicating and interacting with both the petitioner and the first respondent for the completion of customer end network and provision was completed on 20.07.2021. Hence the statement of complainant that BSNL failed to control the LCO resulting inordinate delay is incorrect. Waiver of rent was already given to the complainant by BSNL for the period from 07.07.2021 to 19.07.2021. The allegation that the 3^rd opposite party is liable to pay ₹ 174/- (Rupees one hundred and seventy four only) to the complaint is not correct. Complainant is not entitled to get any amount as damages and as compensation from the 3^rd opposite party as there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the 3^rd opposite party.

The complainant adduced evidence through affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination along with documentary evidence vide Exhibit A1 to A37.

From the part of the opposite party affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination was marked by opposite parties 1 to 3. No documentary evidence for opposite party 1 and 2. 1^st opposite party  was examined as DW1. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked from the side of 3^rd opposite party .

On the basis of the pleadings and dividends on record we framed the following issues to be answered:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party ?
2. If so what are the reliefs and cost?

Point Nos. 1 and 2

The case of the complainant is that though 1^st opposite party who is the local cable operator of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties received advance rent from the complainant was not ready to give the upgraded broadband connection to the complainant only because he purchased the new modem GPON ONT from outside not from the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties who are the broadband service providers did not take responsibility for the actions of the 1^st opposite party who is only a franchisee of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties the complainant was unable to provide sufficient internet connection to his daughter for her studies in the pandemic period. The complainant himself had to suffer great loss in his share business also due to the lack of sufficient internet connectivity. The opposite parties contended that there was no wilful disconnection of the internet connection of the complainants from the part of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party upgraded their internet services by converting the EPON modem to GPON modem and all other customers except the complainant shifted to the new device. The complainant was not ready to purchase the GPON modem from the 1^st opposite party and the modem purchased by the complainant from outside was not compatible for the connectivity of the 1^st opposite party. Moreover the complainant was a defaulter in the internet payment. These are the two reasons for the disconnection.

The complainant’s internet connection was in the name of his father so in the capacity of a beneficiary the complainant can be considered as a consumer of the opposite parties. As per Exhibit A3 series, the complainant has paid internet charges to the 1^st opposite party  from 03.01.2021 to 06.06.2021. Though the complainant alleges that the opposite party has received ₹ 5,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) from the complainant as advance no evidence has been produced in this regard. The main allegation of the complainant is that though the complainant purchased a GPON  Modem the 1^st opposite party was not ready to configure it and give connection. The whole complaint is that though the complainant was ready with a GPON modem the 1^st opposite party was not ready to give connection but the complainant has failed to produce the bill of the GPON modem purchased by the complainant before 14.07.2021. In the complaint and in the affidavit the complainant has cared not to state the date of purchase of the GPON  Modem. From exhibit A18 it is evident that the complainant purchased the modem only on 14.07.2021. Thereafter on 15.07.2021 3^rd opposite party contacted the 1^st opposite party and on 16.07.2021 itself the 1^st opposite party visited the house of the complainant to activate the modem, the complainant demanded to give the connection of the 3^rd opposite party through a new optical cable network and continue the connection of 2^nd opposite party  through the existing optical cable line which is not disputed by the complainant. On 19.07.2021 the 1^st opposite party activated the new modem of the complainant and thereafter the complainant has been using the internet connection uninterruptedly. For all the allegations regarding the advance payment received by the op non reconnection due to personal grudge, monopoly of the 1^st opposite party in the locality etc are not proved by the complainant in spite of all the documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A37 produced by the complainant.

From the evidence adduced by both the parties and from the deposition of the DW1 we find that the 1^st opposite party has decided to change the EPON ONT to GPON ONT with a good intention to give maximum speed to its internet consumers. Though the upgradation is useful to the consumers the LCO has to follow certain guidelines of TRAI. Here in the case on hand we find that the 1^st opposite party has complied all the regulations. Though the complainant alleged that the 1^st opposite party has taken the decision arbitrarily he has failed to put somebody from the locality with the same grievance to the box and depose that the upgradation of the ONT was arbitrary. When all the consumers in a network change to GPON ONT and one of the consumers does not change to this ONT might face issues such as frequent service disruptions, reduced service quality and limitations on bandwidth intensive applications. A mixed environment with both EPON and GPON can lead to less efficient use of the network’s resources. Optimising the network for one technology is generally more efficient that can lead to better overall performance.

Moreover as per Exhibit B1 3^rd opposite party has waved off the rent for the period from 07.07.2021 to 19.07.2021 in which the complainant has not received the broadband service of 3^rd opposite party. Exhibit B2 is issued by 3^rd opposite party towards the charges for the period from 01.10.2021 to 01.11.2021 with a rent rebate of ₹ 200/- (Rupees two hundred only) plus tax ie ₹ 236/- (Rupees two hundred and thirty six only) was deducted from the total bill of        ₹ 529/- (Rupees five hundred and twenty nine only).

So from the above discussion we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties which is effectively proved by the complainant. The issues are answered accordingly and the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of July, 2024

    Smt. Bindhu R.  Member           Sd/-

    Sri. Manulal V.S, President        Sd/-

    Sri. K.M. Anto. Member            Sd/-       

APPENDIX :

Witness from the side of the complainant :

Nil

Witness from the side of the Opposite Parties :

DW1         Benoy K Sebastian

Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :

A1     -        Copy of the application form for Kerala Vision Broadband.

A2     -        Letter of Authorization dated 27-05-2019.

A3     -        Receipt No. 586 dated 03.01.2021.

A3(a) -        Receipt No. 901 dated 04.02.2020.

A3(b) -        Receipt No. 1307 dated 03.03.2021.

A3(c) -        Receipt No. 671 dated 18.04.2021.

A3(d) -        Receipt No. 360 dated 05.05.2021.

A3(e) -        Receipt No. 1605 dated 06.06.2021.

A4     -        Bills for the month of January 2021 to June 2021.

A5     -        Copy of  bill dated 07.07.2021.

A6     -        E-mail printout dated 04.07.2021.

A7     -        Bill No. TKT59936 dated 30.06.2021.

A7(a) -        E-mail printout dated 24.07.2021.

A7(b) -        E-mail printout dated 19.07.2021.

A8     -        Receipt No. 416 dated 15.07.2021.

A9     -        Copy of the notice dated 15.07.2021.

A10   -        Track Consignment

A11   -        E-mail printout dated 05.07.2021.

A12   -        Copy of the customer agreement form from BSNL.

A13   -        Bill No. SDCKL0059564895 dated 03.08.2021.

A14   -        Receipt from BSNL.

A15   -        E-mail printout dated 08.07.2021.

A16   -        Copy of the registration number details .

A17   -        E-mail printout dated 08.07.2021.

A18   -        Invoice No. 7934 dated 14.07.2021.

A19   -        E-mail printout dated 15.07.2021.

A20   -        Reply letter dated 09.09.2021.

A21   -        Reply letter dated 30.11.2021.

A22   -        Appellate order dated 25.10.2021.

A23   -        Copy of the letter dated 18.07.2021.

A24   -        Copy of complaint submitted to Chief Minister office, dated

18.07.2021.

A25   -        E-mail printout dated 19.07.2021.

A26   -         Copy of the reply letter from District Collector, Kottayam dated

04.08.2021.

A27   -        Registration number details

A27(a)-       Registration number details

A27(b)-       Registration number details.

A28   -        Copy of the letter dated 22.07.2021.

A29   -        Text message print out

A30   -        Tax invoice receipt dated 24.07.2021.

A31   -        Copy of the registration number details.

A32   -        E-mail printout dated 04.08.2021.

A33   -        Bill from Airtel dated 19.08.2021.

A34   -        Copy of the legal notice dated 29.10.2021.

A35   -        Copy of the circular dated 27.05.2021.

A36   -        Certificate from Vimala English Medium School, Kurichi.

A37   -        E-mail printout dated 02.07.2021.

Exhibits from the side of the Opposite Parties :

B1     Copy of the bill dated 11.10.2021.

B2     Copy of the bill dated 03.11.2021.

 By Order,

     Sd/-

                                                                                                Assistant Registrar