Complaint filed on: 05.07.2012

                                                      Disposed on: 27.01.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.1367/2012

DATED THIS THE 27^th JANUARY OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -                     

Mr.Sethumadhavan C.R.

S/o late T.B.Paniker

Sviss Exim, 28 1, 3^rd A-Cross

Domlur, 2^nd stage, Indiranagar

Bengaluru-560071

    By Adv. Sri.C.R.Mahendra

                       Gowda

V/s

Opposite party:-       

M/s. Bharti Airtel Tel Ltd

Rep. by its

Managing Director

No.55, Divyashree Towers,

Bannerghatta Main Road,

Bengaluru-29

By Adv.Sri.B.J.Mahesh

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the unfair trade practice, restrictive trade practice, defective and deficiency in service in not providing the efficient internet service to his land line connection though got it upgraded and has claimed the total compensation amount Rs.5 lakhs.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being the managing partner of his family business M/s. Sviss Exim, got the landline and broadband connection to his telephone from 2004 itself as supported by Ex-A1 bill dtd.08.06.2004 till June 2012 sd  supported by bill Ex-A2.  The internet service though promised for 2 mbps was availed for 1.2mbps and after it was upgraded to 4mbps, the service was made available only for 2mbps. Not satisfied with the said service he requested to disconnect broadband only, but the landline connection was also disconnected by the opposite party. At his request, reconnection of landline as per Ex-A3, A4 in June 2012, was resumed, but again disconnected on 15.06.2012. He sent e-mails Ex-A6 & Ex-A7 from 15.06.2012 to 20.06.2012, but no reconnection facility was provided to him. It is against the business circle which amounts to unfair trade practice and hence this complaint is filed.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version denying the allegations made against him contending that the Complaint is barred u/s 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act. The Complainant got it for commercial purpose and hence he does not become consumer. At his request only the service was deactivated with effect from 06.06.2012 without prejudice his defence, it is right to give reconnection but subject to fallow the procedures.  The remaining allegations regarding the efficiency of the internet service and their willful negligence and default are denied. The Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs.

          4. The Complainant and officer of the Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to Ex-A7 documents. No documents were produced by the Opposite party but they have relied on 2 reported decisions, questioning the jurisdiction of this Forum. Arguments were heard.  Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the unfair trade practice, defective and deficiency in service against the Opposite party in providing/not providing the efficient internet service to his land line connection ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant being the managing partner of his family business M/s. Sviss Exim, got the landline phone connection and broadband from 2004 itself as supported by Ex-A1 bill dtd.08.06.2004 till June 2012 as supported by bill Ex-A2.  The internet service for 2 mbps was upgraded to 4mbps. Not satisfied with the service he requested to disconnect broadband only, through ExA3 message dated 1-6-2-12, but the landline connection was also disconnected by the opposite party.  At his request, as per ExA4 dated 12-6-2012, landline was resumed, but again disconnected on 15.06.2012. Hence he sent e-mails Ex-A5 to Ex-A7 from 15.06.2012 to 20.06.2012, but no reconnection facility was provided to him.

8. The contention of the opposite party that at the request of complainant only the service was deactivated with effect from 06.06.2012 cannot be accepted as the ExA3 message refers the broad band connection only and by accepting the same disconnected landline was reinstated.

9. Further contention of the opposite party that without prejudice his defence, it has right to give reconnection but it is subject to follow the procedures, also cannot be accepted. The alleged procedure of seeking documents as if it is fresh connection definitely amounts to unfair trade practice. It was the phone connection existed from 2004 without request for its disconnection by the complainant. The wrong act of its disconnection must have been rectified by the opposite party after coming to know about it. Instead of rectifying the erroneous act, the complainant is asked to suffer with further proceedings unnecessarily and his right of enjoying the phone connection cannot be curtailed by oppressive methods.

  10. Further contention that the Complaint is barred u/s 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act cannot be accepted as the opposite party is only licensee and does not become the telegraph authority.  Another contention that the Complainant got it for commercial purpose and hence he does not become consumer also has no force as the said business is carried by the complainant and his family only and this fact is remained unchallenged.

          11. Such being the case the act of the opposite party in disconnecting the landline phone connection in the absence of request by the complainant, amounts to unfair trade practice and hence this complaint  becomes maintainable. In the result that complainant has established the deficiency in service in disconnection of the landline and unfair trade practice in demanding the documents from the complainant instead of rectifying the mistake. Accordingly consumer dispute No1 is answered in the affirmative.

          12. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of the finding of Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the relief from the opposite party.  The opposite party becomes liable to restore the land line connection which was in existence since 2004 without seeking any documents, without prejudice to their right to collect the information at the later stage as per regulations.

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by allowed partly. The Opposite party is directed to restore the landline of the Complainant which was in existence since 2004 within 30 days.

          2. The Opposite party is also directed to pay the compensation of Rs.10,000/- with litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-.

          3. The Opposite party is also directed to comply the same within 30 days in default to pay the ordered amount with interest at 18% p.a.  

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 27^th day of January 2017).

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party