Order No.9
Dt.14.3.2016
This is a complaint made by one Sri Satyanarayan Jas against M/s Bharti Airtel and C.E.O., Bharti Airtel, Kolkata Circle, praying for purchase of Airtel router of Rs.2,500/-, purchase of MTS modem of Rs.1,500/-, damages for abrupt disconnection of Rs.2,000/-, excess payment of Rs.305.64p and harassment to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and also cost of proceedings.
Facts stated in the complaint are that Complainant went to the Company’s relationship centre viz. Sun Telecom at Jodhpur Park, Kolkata for an internet connection. Said Sun Telecom Centre sent a person to the Complainants house on 7.3.2014 to test the speed of internet. He opined that there was speed and accordingly installed the router at the cost of Rs.2,500/-. Complainant gave photo identity proof and signed personal data form. Complainant initially opted for 5GB plan. Thereafter, the speed got lowered so Complainant asked for additional 2 GB for which he was told that Rs.995/- will have to be paid.
On 5.6.2015 the system stopped completely. Complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.62337774. OP took no step on this complaint. Thereafter, OP sent a person named Kasif Iqbal. But the matter could not be resolved and Complainant after being irritated expressed his desire to customer services to stop the service. Afterthat, on 15.5.2015 Akbar Mondal called on the Complainant and expressed sorry for the inconvenience. On 16.5.2015 one Debashis Goswami was sent to the Complainant’s house and restored the connection any how. After which Complainant opted the plan from 10GB to 15GB. After 27.5.2015there was erratic meter reading. Opposite party raised a bill of Rs.3044.64 instead of Rs.995. Thereafter, Complainant kept a close watch on the consumption and found that abrupt billing was being done. Since the service was not restored completely and there remained deficiency in service; Complainant served a notice on 24.8.2015 via e-mail. Complainant was compelled to pay illegitimate bill. The services was stopped between 2.9.2015 as per e-mail. But actually it was stopped on 28.8.2015.
Thereafter, one call was received from Complainant requesting him not to disconnect the service and the person calling told the Complainant that he will look after the grievances. But, the grievance could not be settled. So the Complainant filed this complaint with the prayer mentioned in the complaint petition.
Written version was filed on behalf of the opposite parties, wherein the allegation of the Complaint have been denied. It is stated in the written version that this Forum has no jurisdiction as this is cover by Section 7B of Indian Telegraph act. Further, it is mentioned in the written version that opposite parties were not deficient in service and so the complaint is not maintainable and relieves mentioned in the complaint should not be granted to the Complainant.
On the basis of above facts following points for determination were framed :
Whether opposite parties were deficient in service
Whether this Forum does not have jurisdiction over the dispute raised through complaint.
Whether Complainant is entitled for relief he has prayed.
Decisions with reasons
Complainant has filed affidavit-in-chief. On behalf of the opposite party a petition has been filed stating that the written version be treated as affidavit-in-chief. No written argument has been filed. But, Ld. Advocate for both the sides made oral submission.
All the points are taken up together for brevity and convenience. At the outset I take up the point of jurisdiction of this case. On behalf of the opposite party a copy of a judgement of District Forum, CDRF, Ferozepur has been filed. In my view, this judgement could not be looked into because there is no material to establish whether this judgement was delivered as per the facts of the complaint similar to it. Further, Ld. Advocate has referred a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on September 1, 2009, by Hon’ble Justice Markendeya Kartju and Hon’ble Justice Ashoke Kr. Ganguly. This judgement relates to non-payment of telephone bills wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that where non-payment is disputed there is a provision in Indian Telegraphic Act. However, in the present case there is no such dispute. Accordingly, I find that this dispute is not covered by the provisions of Indian Telegraphic Act. Other two judgement have been referred which also do not appear to be applicable in the present case. It is because in the present case there is clear deficiency in service which has to be adjudicated. As such the complaint appears to be maintainable.
Now coming to the prayers made by the Complainant as made in complaint wherein he has prayed Rs.2,500/- for purchase of router, Rs.1,500/- for purchase of Modem. In our view any party taking internet connection is required to pay for those purchase. It is clear from the affidavit-in-chief and facts mentioned in the complaint that Complainant enjoyed the services for about a year and so the claim for purchase of router and modem does not appear to be justified.
So far as damages for abrupt disconnection of internet is concerned, the materials on record suggests that there was a disconnection and Complainant suffered for that so this claim appears to be justified. Further, Complainant has prayed Rs.305.64 as excess payment. But, there is no document to show that Complainant made excess payment. Accordingly, this excess payment cannot be allowed.
Finally, Complainant has claimed Rs.30,000/- for the threat. However, this threat has not been mentioned in the complaint petition with specific allegation for which it is claimed has not been mentioned. Only it is stated that some erratic bills were sent for which the Complainant remained panic stricken. Such receipt of bills does not amount to threat for which the compensation or Rs.30,000/- is required.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am of the view that if compensation of Rs.2,000/- is allowed for the mental pain and agony justice should be served.
Hence
O R D E R E D
CC/9/2015 and the same is allowed in part on contest. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4,000/- in total to the Complainant within three months of this order.
The liability of opposite parties are joint and several.
Accordingly , CC/9/2015 is disposed off on contest.
