Date of Filing:14.08.2007<br /> Date of Order: 08.02.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1716 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Naheed.M.N,<br /> (Also known as Naheed Shariff)<br /> S/o Mohammed Noorulla Shariff,<br /> R/at No. 7(Ground Floor),<br /> K.R. Nanjappa Layout,<br /> Koramangala-Audgodi Main Road,<br /> 8th Block, Koramangala,<br /> Bangalore-560 095. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> M/s Atria Convergence Technologies (P) Ltd.,<br /> A company incorporated under <br /> the Indian Companies Act, 1956,<br /> by its Managing Director/Executive Officer, <br /> with its place of business <br /> at 99A/II3A, Manorayanapalya, <br /> R.T. Nagar, Bangalore-560 032. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant claiming compensation and costs.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant is a consumer of opposite party which is a service provider of Internet telecommunication by virtue of a contract for such service commencing the calendar month of January-2007 verbally between them against consideration paid and as well as promised periodically. The agreed fee of Rs.448/- was paid regularly till 30/06/2007. The service of the opposite party was regular, full time and flaw-less was made available to the system in the nature of computer peripheral and accessories maintained at the office of complainant. On 23rd July 2007 complainant’s laptop and computer systems and peripherals suffered a contemporous set back and got disfunctional and remained in-corrigible despite the best efforts to set right them. Complainant brought this interruption of the service to the notice of the opposite party and requested to set right the damage caused altogether or to replace the burnt parts, but the opposite party’s sales man said that the warranty of the system has been lapsed and is not bound to do so. From 24-7-2007 the complainant is not only deprived of the internet service for which he has prepaid, but also of the utility of his laptop. Due to no availability of service he has been put to considerable inconvenience, dislocation of normal life and mental agony. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defense version denying all the allegations made in the complaint and prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for <br /> compensation? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is true that, on 24/7/2007 the laptop of complainant suffered set back and it was not functioning. The opposite party has got nothing to do with the malfunctioning of laptop of the complainant. The opposite party is expected to provide with service facilities as and when there is a call from the customers. Non-functioning of the computer or the laptop has got nothing to do with the opposite party’s service facilities. The complainant himself admits that there was a fluctuation of power mechanical failure on 24/7/2007 and due to that reason his laptop stopped functioning. The network executive of the opposite party visited the complainant’s place and found that his laptop network cord was burnt due to lightning. This fact was informed to the complainant on the same day and he was asked to replace the cord. The opposite party is no way responsible for the damage caused to the laptop due to lightning caused by the nature. The complainant has filed the present complaint in violation of service agreement which was entered into with the opposite party. None of the customers who are in the same locality and having been provided with service facilities of the opposite party have complained with regard to malfunctioning of computer systems on 24/7/2007. The opposite party is expected to only provide with the internet services. Due to electrical fluctuation the parts got burnt and the laptop became useless. The opposite party is an internet service provider. He cannot be held liable for the said mistake. Therefore, the allegation of complainant is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 8TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly, <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />