Orissa

Cuttak

CC/127/2022

Dr Sidhartha Kumar Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Self

07 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.127/2022

 

           Dr.Sidhartha Kumar Sahu,

           S/O:Prof. Ananta Charan Sahu,

           At:Plot No.569,Shelter Chhak,P.O:Tulsipur,

             P.S:Bidanasi,Dist:Cuttack-753008.                                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       Reliance JIO Infocom Limited,

Local Office:Tompay Road,Sector-8,

                   CDA,Cuttack-14

 

2.       M/s. Reliance JIO Infocom Limited,

Fortune Tower,FirstFloor,Wing AB,

                 Gangdhar Meher Marg,Chandrasekharpur,

                 Bhubaneswar,Khurda,Odisha.                                            ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   29.06.2022

Date of Order:  07.07.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Self.

For the O.Ps              :             Mr. B.K.Prapdhan,Adv& Associates.

                     

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that being persuaded and intending to have internet facility, the complainant had opted for a six months plan from the O.Ps with a payment of Rs.2824.92p and had paid the said amount online.  The device was installed by the O.Ps on 2.2.2022 with A/c. No.300644857617 having order I.D no.00007AJL4D.  As per the terms, there was free service for one month and it would terminate on 2.9.2022 with uninterrupted internet service to the complainant.  But on 11.2.2022,12.2.2022,14.2.2022,15.2.2022, 2.3.2022,12.3.2022,13.3.2022,21.3.2022 and 22.3.2022 complaints were being made by the complainant to the O.Ps on various issues due to disruption of the internet supply.  Though on each occasion the issue was resolved but it was for a short period and the complaint was recuring due to the problems which reoccurred and finally when the problems could not be resolved and that the redlight was blinking continuously two months thereafter, on 28.3.2022 the internet connection as provided to the complainant was disconnected by the O.Ps.  The complainant has thus claimed from the O.Ps an amount of Rs.2824/- which he had paid to the O.Ps alongwith a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and also his litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

 In order to prove his case, the complainant has filed copies of several documents alongwith his complaint petition.

2.       Both the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version wherein they have mentioned that the case of the complainant is not maintainable.  They have also questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission since because the warranty card of the product reflects the exclusive jurisdiction at the Courts of Mumbai only.  They admit about the complainant paying to them a sum of Rs.2824.92 on 2.2.2022 for obtaining Jio Fibre Service from them.   Though they admit about the complaints as made by the complainant on the dates as mentioned by him, according to the O.Ps, those were resolved and were not due to their fault. According to them, the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands.  The complainant was a pre-paid subscriber who had availed Jio Fibre Broadband service from them.  The complainant had availed post-paid tariff plan @ Rs.399/- on 2.2.2022 for a period of six months for a price of Rs.2824.92p with 30 days facility and 30 days MBPS speed with unlimited data per day.  The O.Ps had waived off the security deposit charges for ONT device and installation.  Thus, it is the prayer of both the O.Ps to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps no.1 & 2, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments as made in the complaint petition of the complainant alongwith the copies of documents as annexed therein together with the contents of the written version, it is noticed that the O.Ps are not disputing that the complainant in order to have internet facility had opted for six months validity plan from them and had thereby paid a sum of Rs.2824.92p.  It is also not in dispute that regularly there were complaints made by the complainant on various issues to the O.Ps on 11.2.2022,12.2.2022,14.2.2022,15.2.2022,2.3.2022,12.3.2022,13.3.2022,  21.3.2022 and 22.3.2022 but the O.Ps have stated that each time they had resolved those issues when they received such complaint from the complainant.  The allegation made by the complainant that ultimately the internet connection was disconnected on 28.3.2022 is not challenged by the O.Ps.  Moreso, the O.Ps have not whispered a word as regards to the cause of disconnection of the internet service facility on 28.3.2022 as provided by them to the complainant.  The complainant could not get uninterrupted internet service although he had paid for the same and the plea taken by the O.Ps on each time, they had resolved the issues do not suffice.  It is because, the complainant was first instigatedby the O.Ps and being lured away had opted to go for the internet facility from the O.Ps for a period of six months so as to facilitate his day-to-day work but the regular interruptions/disruptions in providing the internet facility to the complainant led to complain time and again to the O.Ps.  The said internet service to the complainant was also disconnected on 28.3.2022 by the O.Ps.  Thus, this Commission comes to a definite conclusion that the moto of availing the internet facility was grossly hampered and the complainant had definitely suffered a lot due to the deficiency in service of the O.Ps  since because there was regular, recurring disruption in providing the internet service who had also practised unfair trade by not refunding back the money even though they had disconnected the internet connection of the complainant on 28.3.22.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issuesno.i&iii.

The O.Ps had challenged the complaint on the point of jurisdiction by urging that it is the courts of Mumbai who are to hear the disputes of these type.  But as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act,2019, the complainant can file his case at the place where he resides and accordingly, he has filed his case.  This Commission has definite jurisdiction also to hear and decide this case.  The case of the complainant is thus maintainable and the complainant is also entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                              ORDER

Case is allowed on contest against the O.Ps who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  Thus, the O.Ps are directed to refund Rs.2824/- as taken by them forthwith and they are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony as well as a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of his litigation.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th  day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                        

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                        Member