This case is coming for final hearing on 20.03.2015 in the presence of Sri Sontyana Mohan Rao, Advocate for Complainant and Opposite Parties called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1. The case of the complainant is that he is a long standing customer broadband services provided by the opposite parties since 29.09.2004 and the complainant provided with broadband account No.1201739 with user name éassarma’.The Complainant is registered under post paid tariff arrangements under ‘Business Plan 3000’ which entitles the complainant to reliable usage of 3000mb for a monthly charge of Rs.625/- and an additional charge of Rs.1/- per mb of additional usage.The complainant paid the monthly bill in time on 02.08.2009 and the payment was reflected in his account as displayed in the website of the opposite parties, the next monthly payment was due in the first week of September, 2009.According to the request of the complainant, the opposite parties corresponded with the complainant at the email address of the complainant and also send the monthly bills to that address.On 14.08.2009 without issuing any prior notice the opposite parties disconnected the service all of a sudden and causing considerable inconvenience to the complainant and loss of valuable broadband service time.Immediately, the complainant registered the complaint under No.10496640 and then the representative of the opposite parties informed the complainant that the disconnection was made by oversight.The opposite parties failed to restore the connection through out on 15.08.2009 and after repeated requests the opposite parties restored the complainant’s internet connection on 16.08.2009 and thereby causing loss of more than 1 ½ days of broadband time.The complainant stated that the termination of broadband service without prior intimation is highly illegal and not restoring until lot of efforts made by him. Even though there is a credit of Rs.0.47/-, the opposite parties wantonly disconnect the connection which causes great deal of inconvenience to the complainant.Again on 17.08.2009 the opposite parties disconnected the complainant’s internet connection without giving any prior notice and causing further inconvenience and also loss to the complainant and also loss of valuable broadband service time for the complainant, on the ground that he exceeded the credit balance, but according to the usage details and payments due as shown on the opposite parties website, after payment of the amount during August, 2009, no dues have been shown as payable by the complainant as is available at the address of the opposite parties.The complainant contacted the opposite parties call centre representative to find out the reason for the service getting disconnected for the second time within a span of three days, then, the representatives of the opposite parties intimated that some amount was outstanding and that could be the reason for disconnection.There was no clarity whatsoever about the exact amount payable at that moment nor was it clear as to why the complainant should pay any amount when the payment scheme was based on post paid arrangement and the opposite parties could readily include the additional amount in the monthly bill generated in the first week of September, 2009.

2. The complainant stated that on verification at the website of the opposite parties, the amount due from the complainant was shown as Rs.0-47p.s. and the tariff plan under which the complainant has been registered is post paid one and the complainant was not required to make any payment during the middle of the month and the due amount will be payable at the end of every month as per the system of post paid account.Thus, the acts of the opposite parties is illegal and more over the complainant was long standing customer and he was regular in payments in time and more over giving prior notice is a basic requirement of natural justice, but the opposite parties failed to intimate the same, hence the act of the opposite parties show how insensitive they are.The acts of the opposite parties caused great inconvenience to the complainant. To restore the service the complainant made payment of Rs.5,000/- in desperation on 18.08.2009 and appealed to the opposite parties to restore the service to carry his urgent internet based work.It was only after this, that the opposite parties finally restored connection.Even at that stage the opposite parties had no consideration for a long standing customer like the complainant and no clear indication was given about the excess amount paid by him.The opposite parties are not equally quick in refunding him the excess amount paid.The second disconnection had resulted a further loss of valuable broadband service time for the complainant and he complained the same to the opposite parties by email and by letters and the same was acknowledged by them, but failed to attend to the complainants made by the complainant.Even though the opposite parties fully aware about the complainant’s email address, they failed to issue the prior notice to that email address regarding the disconnection.Thus, they caused severe mental agony to the complainant.The complainant also issued a registered lawyer’s notice on 09.02.2010 to the 2^nd opposite party and the same was received by it, but failed to comply with the demand made in the notice.Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite parties;                                                                                                a) To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for downtime suffered by the complainant and for disconnection of the service for no valid reason and without prior intimation.                                                                                                                       b)To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and tension caused due to deficiency in service                                               c)To guarantee the complainant that the service will not be disconnected in future without prior notice.                                            d)To pay costs

3. At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and also proof affidavit on 01.10.2014 and Exhibits A1 to A6 are marked.Heard the complainant who reiterated his version.

4. In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5. This complaint was disposed off on 17.09.2010, wherein, the opposite parties called absent and choose to remain exparte.Then, appeal was preferred by the opposite parties 1 and 2 aggrieved by the orders dated 17.09.2010 by F.A.No.237/2011 before A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad.It is to be noted that wherein, the addresses of the opposite parties in F.A. are as same as addresses in the complaint.The opposite parties preferred appeal on several grounds mainly contended that this Forum erroneously allowed the complaint in part that it should have examined whether there is any suppression of facts by the complainant and that gone into question as to why the complainant was effected on account of disconnection of internet 14.08.2009 and 17.08.2009 before passing the final order and that the complainant did not prove the nature of inconvenience caused to him and nature of his evocation and this Forum also not considered the latches on the part of the complainant in not paying the over dues in excess of the credit limit and free usage limit.Hence they prayed the Honourable State Commission to set aside the impugned order.

6. Then, the Honourable State Commission allowed the appeal and order this Forum to set aside and consumer complaint is remitted back to this Forum for fresh disposal according to law as expeditiously as possible after giving opportunity to the opposite parties to file written version, evidence affidavit and documents so also additional evidence by the complainant.The State Commission also ordered the parties to appear before the District Consumer Forum on 16.10.2012 without insisting the fresh notice.

7. Even after the direction given by the State Commission, the opposite parties not come forward to contest their matter as argued before the Honourable State Commission and moreover the notice to the opposite parties 1 and 2 not served and returned with an endorsement “left”, but here it is to be noted that the addresses mentioned in the F.A.NO.237/2011 and in this CC are same.After that the steps were taken by the complainant and notice was ordered by way of substitute service, but as there is no representation, the opposite parties called absent and set exparte.Thus, it is very clear that the opposite parties’ intention is to drag the matter as possible as they can.The opposite parties’ contention in the F.A.No.237/2011 that there is no proof of inconvenience caused to the complainant, but disconnection of the internet without giving prior notice itself is deficiency in service and there is no need to file any proof regarding the inconvenience.Being a service provider the opposite parties have to give connection of the internet as per the terms and conditions and if any over dues are there, then opposite party has to intimate the customer prior to disconnection.But here in this case, the opposite parties failed to do so. Another contention of the opposite parties in F.A order is that the complainant is not paying the over dues in excess of the credit limit and free usage limit.But the opposite parties not come forward to strengthen its plea and not even contest the matter, which clearly shows their deficiency in service on their part.

8. Ex.A1 is the extract of net page showing payment of monthly charges of Rs.690/- on 05.08.2009.Ex.A2 is the e-mail correspondence between the complainant and the opposite parties from 14.08.2009 to 18.08.2009 regarding the disconnection without intimation and also demand regarding the compensation. Ex.A3 is the extract of my usage page showing the outstanding credit Rs.-5047/- as on 18.08.2009. Ex.A4 is registered letter addressed to the 2^nd opposite party on 03.09.2009.Ex.A5 is the email correspondence to the opposite parties by the complainant on 03.10.2009 to settle the matter if not to do so the complainant has no other alternative than to approach the consumer forum.Ex.A6 is the acknowledgments.

9. The contention of the complainant was the long standing customer of broad band service provider by the opposite parties since 29.09.2004, but without issuing prior notice, the opposite parties disconnected the service two times on 14.08.2009 and 17.08.2009 because of that the complainant faced inconvenience and opposite parties not rectified it until lot of efforts made by the complainant and these versions are believable and the documents filed by the complainant reveals that despite several complaints, the opposite parties failed to attend to the complaint made by the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.The opposite parties accepted about the extension of connection by the number of hours equivalent to the down time, but that said extension benefit not accrued to the complainant.Thus, this acceptance itself shows the negligence of the opposite parties.More over, even after the remitted back the matter by the State Commission to this Forum, the opposite parties not come forward to contest the matter and choose to remain exparte which clearly shows their negligence attitude.

10. Without giving prior notice the disconnection of internet by the opposite parties itself is a deficiency in service and caused inconvenience to the complainant, hence allowing compensation of Rs.25,000/- which would be just and proper.

11. The Complaint filed by the complainant on 16.04.2010 and this Forum disposed off on 17.09.2010 and after that the opposite parties preferred an appeal and dragged the matter till today and even after paper publication was given by the complainant, Opposite party choose to set exparte.Hence, allowing Rs.10,000/- towards costs which would be just and proper.

    Accordingly, this point is answered.

12. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing both the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation within two months, failing which to pay the same with 9% p.a. till the date of realization.The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of April, 2015.

     Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I 

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//