Date of Filing – 01.04.2016
Date of Hearing – 22.03.2017
Challenge in this Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Order No.09 dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint no. 09/2015. By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the consumer complaint lodged by the Appellant Sri Satya Narayan Jas under Section 12 of the Act with the direction upon the Opposite Party/Respondent to pay Rs.4,000/- in total to the appellant within 3 months from the date of order.
The appellant herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that being desirous of taking Airtel 4G internet connection approached the respondent and on 07.03.2014 the said connection was installed through the router at the cost of Rs.2,500/-. The bill cycle started from mid-night of 19th day of every month being Connection No.8585841731. Initially complainant opted for 5GB Plan but due to faulty system, the appellant had to enhance the plan from 5GB to 10GB for Rs.995/-. On 05.06.2015, the system was stopped working completely. The appellant has alleged that his several correspondences could not alter the situation. Ultimately, the respondent raised a bill for an amount of Rs.3,044.64 paisa on 21.05.2015 and further on 20.08.2015 a bill for Rs.2,876.12 paisa was raised. The appellant has alleged that he did not consume the 15GB tariff plan and finding no other alternative he opted for disconnection and stopped service. The appellant alleged that due to non-availability of tower in the locality and having without any infrastructure, the respondent promised 4GB speed by adopting unfair trade practice. Hence, the appellant approached the Ld. District Forum with the present complaint praying for certain reliefs like – (a) Rs.2,500/- for purchase of Airtel Router; (b) Rs.1,500/- for purchase of MTS Modem; (c) Rs.2,000/- for damages for abrupt disconnection of internet; (d) Rs.305.64 paisa for excess payment; (e) Rs.30,000/- as compensation etc and (f) cost of proceeding.
The respondents being OP nos. 1 & 2 by filing a written version have stated that in view of the provisions of Section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the complaint is not maintainable. The respondents specific case is that the appellant wilfully enhanced his plan of package from 5GB to 10GB at his own choice and there was no deficiency in services on the part of them.
After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with a direction upon the OP to pay Rs.4,000/- to the complainant. Being dissatisfied with the awarded amount, complainant has come up in this Commission with the instant appeal.
I have heard the appellant in person. None appears for the respondents when the record called on for hearing. Under painful compulsion, the appeal was heard and considered on merit in absence of the respondents.
On scrutiny of the materials on record and having heard the appellant in person, it appears to me that the plea of maintainability raised on behalf of the respondents has been duly considered and rejected by the Ld. District Forum. In this regard, we may take note that in view of the Judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2009) 8 SCC 481 (General Manager Telecom – vs. – M. Krishnan & Anr.) the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communication & IT vide a letter dated 24.01.2014 while responding to the communication received from the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of West Bengal on 07.10.2013, in relation to the Judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the said decision involved a dispute between the Department of Telecommunications which was a ‘Telegraph Authority’ under the Indian Telegraph Act, as a service provider. However, as the powers of ‘a Telegraph Authority’ are now not vested in the private telecom service providers, as is the case here, Section 7B of the said Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 has no manner of application and a Forum constituted under the Act is competent to entertain the disputes between individual telecom consumers against telecom service providers. Therefore, the appellant is a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.
The materials on record indicates that immediately after installation of route on 07.03.2014, the appellant was facing the constant trouble in receiving the proper internet connection. Time and again he has made contact to several officials of respondent no.1 and in the petition of complaint, the appellant has categorically mentioned the names of those officials. The respondents took a plea of defect of parties for non-impleading of those officials. The respondents did not deny that the employees or staff the name of whom has been mentioned in the petition of complaint are not the employees of the OP/respondents. The appellant has not only mentioned the names of the officials to whom he contacted for redressal of his grievances but also mentioned their mobile nos. or phone nos. and as such there is hardly any reason to disbelieve the statement of the appellant.
The appellant with an idea to install 4GB had made contact with the respondent no.1 but he did not get the desired service. For successful operation of his internet system, he had to increase the plan from 5GB to 10GB and ultimately, it was enhanced from 10GB to 15 GB. But the main problem was that the tower was situated about half a kilometre away from the house of the appellant and as such he could not get the desired service. In all fairness, before installation of router, the respondent no.1 being service provider should have assess whether from the house of the appellant, the service of Airtel Internet connection was accessible or not. In this regard, the lacuna on the part of the service provider being apparent, the respondents must be held responsible being providing services. The letters and correspondences clearly demonstrate that the respondents/OPs were deficient in rendering services.
In that perspective, the Ld. District Forum was quite justified in allowing the complaint but taking into consideration, the sufferance of the appellant, the Ld. District Forum should have awarded a compensation to the loss suffered by the appellant and further he was entitled to litigation cost. Considering the nature of allegations and other attending circumstances, in my view, the Ld. District Forum should have awarded litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the harassment and mental agony in favour of the appellant.
In view of the above, this Commission modifies the impugned order to the extent that the respondents shall make payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the appellant/complainant within 30 days from date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this date till its realisation.
With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of.
The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-III for information.
