Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/151

Arvind kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

MTNL - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI

NEW DELHI

 

Complaint Case No.151/2016

 

In the matter of:

 

	Arvind Kumar S/o Shri Mukat Lal, R/o C-598, Vikas Puri, New Delhi- 110018                                                                   ........Complainant
	Versus

Area Manager,

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited

District Centre, Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058

 

Chairman & Managing Director

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited,

Mahanagar Doorsanchar Sadan

9, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,

New Delhi-110003

                                                                                                       ........Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:           DATE OF DECISION:

23.02.2016 20.09.2022     21.10.2022

 

CORAM

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Complainant in person.

ORDER

 

Per: Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

1. The facts as culled out from the record are  summarised hereunder:
2. Complainant states that he had  hired Telephone  services of OP  at his residence vide  Consumer account number 2051506345 by getting installed a landline phone No.25506345 almost 30 years back on 29/04/1986. Subsequently the complainant opted for OP's Broadband Internet services also on 13/11/2006 i.e. 9 years back. But OP failed to provide satisfactory Broadband services & continued to harass the complainant. Complainant had to make frequent & unending complaints and has even approached all officers (including CMD) of OP during last 9 years, but to no avail.  Complainant had to make 1st complaint about non-working of Broadband within 10 days of its Installation i.e. on 24/11/2006 (Docket number-275). Thereafter complainant had made unending more than 240 complaints during last 9 years through various available modes such as 198, 1504, online, telephone, SMS, Emails & letters  right from top to bottom brass of OP. These about 240 complaints in 9 years indicate that broadband services of MTNL were down almost every 15 days. There may be complaints for which the complainant may not have been able to keep record & therefore, the actual complaints made may even run more than 240 in numbers. Out of these more than 240 complaints, 169 complaints were made through OP’s available complaint modes  like 198, 1504 and online, 32 complaints through telephone to JE, SDO, Senior Manager, Area Manage, General Manager, Executive Director and Nodal Officer, 3 letters by post to the GM of OP, 2 letters  to the Accounts Officer of OP, 11 emails to Area Manager, General Manager and Executive Director on their respective emails, 9 SMSs to SDO, Senior Manager and Area Manager on their respective  mobiles, 11 visits/calls by JE, SDO, Sr. Manager, GM and other officers of OP appreciating the problem but not giving any solution to it, one complaint made to Public Grievance Cell of Govt. of India, 5 complaints to National Consumer Helpline, 3 letters by post and three emails to the CMD of OP.
3. According to complainant, he made his best efforts to avoid approaching this Commission, But the OP  continued to ignore complainant's numerous complaints made for last 9 years & failed to provide uninterrupted service of Broadband mainly due to their own faulty infrastructure in place & added to this an extremely deficient service, thus forcing complainant to finally approach consumer forum for claims.  According to the complainant, in the year 2009 Broadband service further deteriorated to the extent that it practically stopped working. When complaints made through normal channels i.e. 198, 1504 & also phone calls to JE & SDO did not work for last 3 years, Complainant started writing letters to their GM(JKP) starting from 5th Sep 2009 onwards. Complainant in this letter  gave details of 68 complaints, facts about complaints being closed without attending, highlighted about extremely poor service together with urgent need of replacing unserviceable infrastructure in place etc.,  but his letter was ignored by the OP. Having not received any response to his above letter, the complainant again wrote a letter to said Officer on 26.09.2009. Complainant in this letter  gave daily report about Mal-functioning of Internet from 5th to 25th Sep 2009. OP’s  officials verbally attributed Mal-functioning to the defective phone line parameters.  Complainant’s above two letters not having been acknowledged by the office of GM(JKP), he then wrote email dated 03.10.2009.  The Complainant even tried to talk to the GM of OP on phone but  he was not connected with him and in fact  connected to one Ms Meena Khanduja. Asstt Personnel Manager, who was not aware of complainant’s above mentioned both the letters. Thus this Email sent to GM with soft copies of both above letters was the result of conversation with Ms Meena Khanduja. Still not getting any response from the OP, complainant  again wrote a letter  dated 17th Nov 2009 to GM (JKP), highlighting further daily report about Mal-functioning of internet from 26 September  to 17 Nov 2009.  A copy of above letter dated 17th Nov 2009 addressed to GM (JKP) of OP  was forwarded to GM (Broadband) Mr R A Gupta also by Post. But no reply/acknowledgement/action from GM (Broadband) received.  
4. During the year 2015, services of MTNL went extremely poor & got worse   from July 2015 onwards to the extent that it could be termed as no service at all. The above gets supported by the fact that out of total 108 complaints/communications made during 2015, 84 complaints/communications have been made between 9th July 2015 & 18th Dec 2015. Complainant, looking into his association of 30 years with OP & his age of 70, still wanted to continue with MTNL for his remaining life. Therefore, complainant made all out efforts through all available channels and lodged unending complaints/ requests for restoring an un-Interrupted working of Broadband & reimbursement of rebates & claims. Complainant made these complaints/ requests to all the officers of OP by way of OP's normal channels i.e. 1504/online, telephonically, writing letters, sending Emails, sending SMSs & even through National Consumer Helpline. But none of the above named Officers of OP even acknowledged a single complaint/ communication of the complainant.
5. Despite extremely poor/practically no service, complainant still decided to make another attempt with the hope that OP will rise to occasion. Complaints were made through Phone/ SMS/ Emalls/ letters up to the level of Chairman & Managing Director during the year 2015,  starting from January, 2015 to July, 2015.  Complainant Vide Letter dated 19th July 2015 to AO (TR) & AM complainant wrote that since no officer from operations Deptt. Of OP  listened to the problem, he should be allowed necessary rebates from 9/7/2015 to the date when MTNL is able to put back his internet connection in absolute working order.  Since AO (TR) also as usual did not respond to complainant's letter dated 19th July sent by ordinary post, another letter was sent on 21st July 2015 to AO (TR) by the complainant.  In this letter complainant has highlighted details of numerous complaints made together with poor infrastructure & losses suffered.   But Complainant was astonished, when the envelope containing above letter dated 21st July 2015 together with letter dated 19 July 2015 sent by speed post was delivered back by Postal Department on 26th July 2015, duly recorded that AO(TR), MTNL has refused to receive the letter. Complainant placed on record proof of refusal to receive the letter.
6. Complainant then lodged grievance about OP’s refusal to receive complainant's above letter through GOI Portal (telephone No. 23221166) vide complaint number E-247  dated 28 July 2015 .  On 19th Aug 2015, OP submitted a false report on GOI Portal that they have received complainant's letter & forwarded to concerned department on 29 July 2015. But as stated earlier, complainant had received back the letter  on 26 July 2015  itself  duly recorded as refused.
7.  Complainant then lodged another complaint on GOI Portal against the fake report of OP vide Registration number DOTEL/E/2015/30265 dated 23 Aug 2015. But on 17 Sep 2015, OP reiterated its false report on GOI Portal & closed the case. OP in this report even stated that "Further clarification, if any, regarding this matter may be taken up with postal authority".
8. Complainant then approached the National Consumer Forum  and made Online Complaints  between 10 Aug 2015 and 08.10.2015. Nodal officer of OP’s internal grievance handling system ignored the complaint.  With no action by OP's Nodal officer for National Consumer Forum for 6 months, a feedback Email was sent to NCH on 7th Nov 2015.
9.  After exhausting all modes as above, complainant approached ED/OP through Emails  highlighting facts about OP’s continuing to bill with practically no service & continue to remain unreliable even after 9 years. Even a feedback, that complainant's 2 immediate neighbors [i.e. C-597 & C-599(FF)] have surrendered OP’s Services in last 2 months just because they were fed up of OP's extremely poor service, did not move ED of OP.
10. When  the above channels of complainant did not have any impact on above officers of OP, complainant had no option but to stop payments of bills being raised by OP with practically no services & surrender 30 year old services (Landline together with Broadband) of OP vide Letter of surrender with claims dated 20 Nov 15 to Mr. N.K Yadav CMD of OP. While surrendering the services of MTNL through this letter, Complainant highlighted brief history of complaints made during last 9 years, Feedback on Customer Service/Satisfaction Poor Infrastructure & Maintenance & lodged claims for losses suffered.  This was followed by  Emails dated 21 Nov 2015 and 23 Nov 2015 to  CMD of OP requesting  to refund his security deposit (together with interest) which was paid on 1 July 1986. Since CMD of OP also ignored complainant's above letters towards claims, another letter dated 28th Nov, 2015 was issued to the CMD of OP followed by email dated 04.12.2015. Though complainant surrendered OP’s services on 20th Nov 2015, but OP as usual ignored even complainant's letters/Emails of surrender & claims issued to CMD/ ED/GM (W).  OP’s  phone line together with Broadband services were completely down for 8 days from 5 Dec to 12th Dec 2015. Though Phone started working from 13th Dec 2015, but Broadband still remained down.  Ultimately, OP disconnected complainant's telephone connection on 17th Dec 2015 but  continued raising bills even after complainant had surrendered its services. The above act of OP also supports the complainant's repeated claims that OP had been billing all along for unsatisfactory/no services for last 9 years.
11.  Complainant states that he received only reply in nine years from the OP was on 14th Dec 2015 & Complainant's reply sent to CMD vide letter dated 18 Dec 2015. This reply of OP received by complainant through Email is a report submitted by Area Manager of OP, Mr K S Rawat to his seniors namely Chairman & Managing Director, Executive Director & General Manager (W) on 5th Dec 2015 & forwarded to complainant by GM (W) on 14 Dec 2015. The text of the reply received by the complainant from GM (W) of OP which is relevant to this case, states that:

"Report received from AMJKP is enclosed herewith for your information pl. Inconvenience caused to subscriber is sincerely regretted."

 

Firstly the above text of reply itself is an acceptance by Area Manager to his seniors Including CMD that he has been putting the complainant into Inconvenience. But despite accepting this fact, Area Manager in his report has tried to completely misguide all his higher officers including CMD on all points, except one, to hide his failures. The only one point which he has factually reported is that "OP's infrastructure in place for years is defective/unserviceable", as reproduced below:

 

 “AM/JKP Report says:

 

This is with reference to complaint of LL/BB No.25506345 by Shri Arvind Kumar.  Grievances of subscriber forwarded to AMJKP Unit.  Reply is reproduced below:

 

Presently the T.No.25506345 installed with B/B at C-598, Vikaspuri is working satisfactory  with B/B service. Subscriber using bbnd  services  under plan-freedom 795 combo plan in which 2 mbps speed is  up to 25 GB and latter on 512 speed.

 

"The said connection (whole C-Block Vikaspuri) is feeding from Janakpuri Exchange in spite of the said address/location is 175-200 Mtr away from Vikaspuri RSU and  whereas the distance from JKP Exchange to subs. premises is more than 5km. The scheme for change of area, PE/DE had already been approved by HQ and now pending with Development unit for execution of work. The existing primary cable 1200 prs is also having low insulation fault.

 

Whenever complaint is received from user the field unit has always taken prompt action to restore the services.  Field  unit has delivered their best to provide  the satisfactory LL & BBand services to user of that  area even constraints like cable quality and distance criteria.

 

Now plan is preparing to lay 200 mtr of 20 pres cable direct from  MDF/DSLAM of RSU Vikaspuri to pillar VKP-79 to pick the part of C Blk (about 15 kothies + Gurudwara) to provide  better LL & BBand services subject to  approval of proposal  and availability of contractor manpower.”

 

 

12.          According to the complainant, OP’s  Mission & Vision is  "To remain market leader in providing world class Telecom and IT related services at affordable prices and to become a global player" MTNL's Vision for Tomorrow is  "To find a place in the Fortune 500 companies" . Complainant is astonished  and

wonders whether OP hopes to achieve its Mission & Vision as above with completely depleted infrastructure in place & harassment instead of services  it provide to its customers.

 

By way of the present complaint, the following prayers are made by the complainant:

 

(a) Reimbursement of Rs 30,000 towards amounts billed for extremely deficient or practically no services for last 9 years.

 

(b) A sum of Rs 1,00,000 towards the Physical strain and Mental agany suffered by the complainant & his wife (both senior citizens) for 9 years.

 

(c) A sum of Rs 40,000 towards loss of work.

 

(d) A sum of Rs 15,000 towards cost of this petition.

 

(e) Cost of Rs 1,000 towards numerous phone calls, SMSs, postage etc..

 

(f) Refund of deposit of Rs 1,200 together with interest from 1/7/1986 to date.

 

13. Complainant filed along with the complaint, details of 249 complaints made to OP vide letters, SMSs, emails, telephonic calls etc., Public Grievance Cell of GOI, National  Consumer Helpline, reply received from OP.
14. Upon admission of the complaint on 26.02.2016, notice was issued to the OP who filed written statement.  In the written statement, OP submitted that the Complainant does not come with clean hands before this Commission and concealed material facts and the same is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. No cause of action arose against the  Opposite Party to file the present complaint and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. There is neither any negligence nor deficiency of providing service of Telephone  on the part of the Opposite Party at all and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.
15. OP took the objection that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It is submitted that the complainant cannot claim reimbursement of last 9 years. The complainant is habitual in making complaint at the office of OP and complaining on false and frivolous ground without any base despite the facts that his Landline as well as Broadband connection are working perfectly which is clearly revealed from the calls details mentioned in the reply.
16. OP further stated that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder/misjoinder of the necessary parties and has been filed with a  sole motive to harass and extort money from the answering OP.
17. According to the OP, the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be dismissed in the light of the observation/judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr. AIR 2010 SC 90 wherein it was held that all the disputes with regard to telephone bills etc. in view of the Special remedy available / provided under the Indian telephone Act under Section 7B that any disputes concerning any telegraph line, appliances or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person for whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and  shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specially for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. Therefore, all disputes with respect to the telephone bills etc. matter be referred to arbitrator for arbitration and the same is not maintainable before Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Furthermore, it is submitted that as per judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 27.11.2014 in case titled as Mahinder Kumar Garg Vs. PRO, MTNL,  for the disputes regarding Telephone connection, Consumer Forum/Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
18. OP submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that as per the details of meter reading statement of Landline telephone placed on record,  it is clear that the complainant is enjoying and using the Landline services provided by O.P on regular basis. Whenever the Complainant booked any complaint, the answering OP rectified the same and on several occasions rent rebate was also sanctioned and was reflected in the respective bills.
19. OP specifically denied that it failed to provide satisfactory Broad Band services & continued to harass complainant.  It is submitted that OP provided the best services to the complainant (Subscriber) and whenever the Complainant booked complaint, the OP attended the same immediately. The details of the month-wise usage of the Broad Band were placed on record by the OP and  it is clear from the broadband usage that the  complainant is enjoying and using the Brand Band services provided by OP on regular basis.
20. OP submitted that as regards the first complaint lodged by the complainant with the OP on 24.11.2006,  the record is very old and is not traceable/available with it. OP submitted that the Telephone line of complainant  was disconnected due to Non-Payment (DNP) of bills since 17-12-2015 against the pending bills amounting to Rs.4682/-.
21. OP denied having knowledge of receipt of various letters/emails/SMSs from the complainant addressed to Senior Officers of OP. It denied that the complainant had ever written letters from 20.11.2015 to 13.12.2015 to its CMD. It is submitted that the complainant did not make the complaint to the area concerned for surrendering the Telephone, i.e. Area SDE (Phones). It is submitted that the Telephone service was not surrendered by the Complainant but the same was disconnected by the OP due to Non- Payment of the above mentioned outstanding Bills and the Complainant had not deposited the Telephone Instrument and Broad Band Modem to the concerned area SDE (Phones).
22.  OP prayed that the present complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
23.  Along with the reply, OP filed details of working of the landline telephone of complainant right from 2006 to 2015, copies of judgments rendered by the Apex Court and the NCDRC, as quoted above, monthwise usage summary of telephone No.25506345 right from November, 2006 to December, 2015, details of unpaid bills  for 2015 and 2016.
24. Complainant filed rejoinder to the averments  of the OP made in the written statement and denied the same. Complainant submitted that he has not concealed material facts and  has placed complete facts before this Forum. In fact OP has deliberately ignored material facts submitted by complainant in the form of 24 enclosures to the complaint, to mislead the Forum. Therefore the contents of OP's objection being baseless & misleading, are denied. Complainant has given details of 240 complaints in the present complaint bringing out the fact  that broadband services were down almost every 15 days. But OP failed to provide uninterrupted broadband services due to their own faulty & unserviceable Infrastructure in place and  in order to hide their faulty infrastructure & extremely deficient services, OP is intentionally ignoring contents of the complaint. The complainant has valid cause of action to raise the present complaint.
25. Complainant submitted that the OP in its reply  has stated that "Complainant cannot claim reimbursement of 9 years". This statement itself indicates OP's acceptance to the fact that there has been deficiency in broadband services right from the beginning. Details of deficient services, on the part of OP ever since they installed Broadband services at his premises on 13/11/2006, have been given in the complaint duly supported by necessary documents. The complainant has been continuously writing to the OP during the period 2006 to 2015  to take remedial steps. Therefore the objection of the OP to the averments of complainant is  only to hide their failures. Complainant submitted that the objection of OP that he is habitual in making complaints, is a laughing statement. No customer would like to agonize himself by spending time, energy, money etc only for the sake of making complaints. If broadband services provided by OP had been working uninterruptedly & satisfactorily, the complainant would not have made  240 complaints. Most of the times complainant had to make repeated complaints on daily basis & at times even more than once in a day.   Complainant further contended that if all the complaints made by him were  on false & frivolous ground, without any basis and  totally afterthought, the OP in that case should have replied his  complaints negating each and every one. No such reply from top to bottom brass of OP to his  numerous complaints amounted to OP's acceptance to their faulty & deficient Broadband services. In fact OP themselves   have accepted their failure in writing vide their only reply in 9 years sent to complainant on 14th Dec 2015  wherein OP has even tried to mislead this Forum by attaching call details of landline  which are totally irrelevant to the complaint because the complaint is for uninterrupted & unsatisfactory working of broadband and not the landline telephone. In fact broadband never worked uninterruptedly due to unserviceable & faulty infrastructure in place as accepted by OP in writing through their communication dated 14 Dec 2015.
26. Complainant denied the allegation of OP that “complainant's sole motive is to harass & extort money from MTNL". Such an allegation, by an undertaking like OP & that to on its own customer, not only sounds funny but disheartening as well. Does the OP wants to say that the consumer will first hire its services & then continue to pay hefty sums for 9 years for unsatisfactory services, only with the aim to file petition in consumer forum. This allegation of OP amounts to practically abusing its own customer. In fact it is the OP who has been harassing the complainant & extracting money by way of billing towards un-satisfactory/no service for last 9 years, without giving even an ear to numerous complaints raised up to the level of its CMD.
27. The act of OP's harassment & extortion of money from complainant is further proved by the fact that  though complainant had surrendered its telephone services  on 20/11/2015, but the OP  continued to raise bills on complainant till April, 2016. Complainant is not aware whether the OP is still continuing to raise bills.
28.  Complainant submitted that the OP in its reply states that "Whenever the complainant booked any complaint, it rectified the same, and on several occasions rent rebate was also sanctioned". This statement of OP is in absolute contradiction to the statement given by them in the later part of their reply. In the reply, on the one hand the OP alleged that "Complainant is habitual in making complaints on false ground without any base" whereas in later part of the reply , OP contradicts its own allegation by stating that "Whenever the complainant booked any complaint, MTNL rectified the same".

Similarly one the one hand OP claimed  in its reply  that "Broadband connection is working perfectly" and on the other OP submitted in the reply that  "on several occasions rent rebate was also sanctioned". Here again OP's own statements are contradictory. This  proves beyond doubt that OP is trying to unsuccessfully hide its failures in providing uninterrupted & satisfactory broadband services.

29. Complainant submitted that OP has simply denied the contents of the entire complaint with allegations but have failed to submit even a single documentary evidence to support their denials. On the contrary OP has tried to hide their failures by submitting/referring to totally irrelevant documents.
30. According to the complainant, OP in a communication to complainant in writing dated 14.12.2015   have accepted their own constraints/failures, like Cable Quality and Distance Criteria in providing uninterrupted/ satisfactory broadband services, i.e. Janakpuri Exchange being more than 5 kms away.  Even in the said communication, the OP has  stated that "Inconvenience cause to subscriber is sincerely regretted". Thus the OP itself has accepted in writing their failure to  provide uninterrupted/ satisfactory broadband services as above. Thus, if the infrastructure in place  itself is  defective/faulty, the services cannot become best Simply by saying so. As to the faulty service of OP, complainant  cited one concrete example which is enough to prove that how deceptive & dishonest are the statements made by the OP. According to complainant, a DP (distribution point)  which may be costing few Hundred Rupees, installed on a pole outside the premises of complainant from where the connections are given to number of consumers including the complainant, is missing since year 2014. Since DP is missing for almost more than 2 years now, all pair joints are left haywire, twisted, exposed to air & rain & hanging at a height from where even a child can pull these. Besides faulty infrastructure in place as narrated above & accepted by OP, this missing DP further added to interrupted/unsatisfactory working of broadband. Thinking DP as a very tiny matter, complainant initially lodged verbal complaints to OP officers for its replacement but when no one in OP  gave an ear & bothered to listen to his requests, complainant sent six written complaints to concerned officers of OP.  He stated that even today, after filing of the complaint, i.e. after lapse of more than 2 years, above 6 written complaints (Besides many more made verbally), OP has not moved & keeping its ear & eyes closed. Complainant attached with the rejoinder as proof of missing DP on the Pole, photographs highlighting the same. Still the OP is making a false claim before this  Forum that they attend to complaints immediately as and  when it is raised by consumer. This is the height of impudence & callousness on the part of OP.
31. Complainant submitted that since he has an Unlimited usage plan of broadband (i.e. 25 GB at higher speed & thereafter unlimited at lower speed), usage details is no indication that broadband worked uninterruptedly & satisfactorily. OP's attempt is only to sidetrack the actual complaint. Complainant relied on the statement  filed with his rejoinder to prove as to how  extremely interrupted & deficient broadband had been working at his place. The data of this statement shows that Broadband connection dropped every few seconds & 250 times in a period of just 10 hours, which amounted to failure of connection on an average every 3 minute. Further It is very important to note that the data of this statement is generated from OP's own website. This proves beyond doubt that the Broadband services provided by OP are not only extremely deficient but can even be termed as practically no service. But still the OP submitted before this Forum that  "Broadband worked perfectly"  "MTNL provided best services" and  "Complainant is enjoying & using the broadband service on regular basis".  Is this the OP's policy & scale to measure the quality of broadband connection that even if it goes off every 3rd minute, OP terms it not only their best & perfect service but also claim that it is usable on regular basis. In view of interruptions beyond imaginations, complainant was  forced to keep the Modem switched on all the times so that at least auto downloads/upgrades in all the devices in family are  done if any time connection is available.
32. Complainant submitted that the OP  is able to dig out very old records for 9 years for landline calls  which are absolutely irrelevant to the complaint but it has deliberately avoided the  details of 240 complaints made by him by saying that these are not traceable, as the same are relevant to the complaint. This shows that the OP is just trying to hide its deficiencies & failures in providing uninterrupted/ satisfactory broadband services.
33. According to the complainant, the OP has given details of outstanding bills but has again deliberately hidden the facts & mislead this  Forum.  Complainant sent a letter to GM & Area manager of OP  requesting them that "MTNL should not bill me unless the connection is restored & put to trial for sufficient period of time to ensure uninterrupted working" by Speed post on 27/07/15. When the broadband remained down for 20 days in July 15, the complainant lodged 5 complaints through National Consumer Helpline (NCH), between 10/08/15 & 8/10/15, requesting for full month rebate in line with its guideline i.e. "If fault remains pending for > 15 days: rent rebate for 1 month"). But OP did not respond to complaints made through NCH also. Complainant then requested ED (Delhi) for rebate & uninterrupted working of broadband through 4 (Four) Emails sent to his email id edd@bol.net.in on 29 Sep, 13 Oct, 29 Oct & 3 Nov 2015. But the OP neither gave 1 month rent rebate for July 15 even in the bill raised by them on 08/10/2015 nor rectified the fault. Complainant still paid the bill raised by OP on 08/10/2015. Thus complainant was left with no option but decided to surrender OP services of Broadband together with Landline & stop paying further bills which OP continued to raise with practically no services.
34. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and he exhibited the documents filed on record as C.W.1/1 to C.W.1/24, C.W.1/X and C.W.1/Y.
35. OP also filed evidence by way of evidence and exhibited the documents filed on record as Ex.OP.1/I to 1/V.
36. Written arguments were filed by the complainant and the OP on record,.  On  20^th September, 2022, in the absence of OP, oral arguments of complainant were heard and the orders reserved.
37. During arguments the complainant relied on the documents filed on record and reiterated the ordeal faced by him in dealing with the Broadband services offered by the OP in all these nine years starting from 2006 to 2015.  Complainant prayed for grant of prayers made in the complaint.
38. We have gone through the pleadings filed on record by the rival parties and the arguments asdvanced by the complainant.  The first and foremost objection of the OP was that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  It relied on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court and  Hon’ble NCDRC as noted above.  However, it is relevant to mention the latest judicial pronouncement on the issue which make the position crystal clear as to the jurisdiction of the consumer fora in dealing with  the issue in hand.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court  held in the judgment reported in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society V/s. M. Lalitha (Dead) through L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2004 SC-448 = I(2004) CPJ 1 (SC) that arbitration proceedings cannot overrule Consumer Protection Act which is in addition to and not in derogation of such provisions.
40. The question  whether  the  present proceedings  in the complaint are covered by  the arbitration clause in terms of Section 7B of the Telegraph Act, we may take note of the recent pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Civil Appeal No 923 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No 28615  of 2016, decided on 16^th Febuary, 2022.   In the said case also the Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a similar issue of  deficiency in service by the  telecom service provider and whether in view of the clear cut provision made for reference of the dispute to arbitration under Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is barred.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court  while re-assessing  the verdict rendered  by the same Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom v. M Krishnan and Another, 4 (2009) 8 SCC 481 and the provisions of  Section 2(o)  and 2(g)  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the corresponding provision of the present Consumer Protection Act, 2019 in the form of Section 2(42)  which specifically includes “telecom services”,  held that the Consumer Protection Act is a special law and not in derogation of any other law.  The  relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal (supra) are to the following effect:

“In the present case, the existence of an arbitral remedy will not, therefore, oust the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. It would be open to a consumer to opt for the remedy of arbitration, but there is no compulsion in law to do so and it would be open to a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies which are provided under the Act of 1986, now replaced by the Act of 2019. The insertion of the expression ‘telecom services’ in the definition which is contained in Section 2(42) of the Act of 2019 cannot, for the reasons which we have indicated be construed to mean that telecom services were excluded from the jurisdiction of the consumer forum under the Act of 1986. On the contrary, the definition of the expression ‘service’ in Section 2(o) of the Act of 1986 was wide enough to comprehend services of every description including telecom services.”

41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of Vodafone Idea (supra) relied on the verdict of the Apex Court in  the case of Imperia Structures Ltd. v Anil Patni, (2020) 10 SCC 783in which it was held that the remedies available under the Act of 1986 are in addition to the remedies available under other statutes, including special statutes like the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act 2016. The Apex Court reiterated the settled position of law in the following terms:

“23. It has consistently been held by this Court that the remedies available under the provisions of the CP Act are additional remedies over and above the other remedies including those made available under any special statutes; and that the availability of an alternate remedy is no bar in entertaining a complaint under the CP Act.”

42.             In view of the direct  and pointed verdict of the Apex Court in the case of Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs Ajay Kumar Agarwal (supra), we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion  that this Commission has the jurisdiction to try the issue raised in the present complaint. In any case, the Hon’ble  Supreme Court  in the ruling  in the case of Vodafone Idea(supra) has over-ruled the  earlier verdict of Apex Court in the case of Krishnan’s case(supra).
43. As regards the objection of the OP that the present complaint is barred by limitation, it is to be noted that the complainant started facing trouble with the broadband services offered by the OP on his landline phone starting from 2006 and it continued till November, 2015 when the complainant fed up with the callous and indifferent attitude of OP in rectifying the defect in the broadband services offered  on his land line service, on 20^th November, 2015 surrendered the telephone.  The same was acknowledged by the OP and they discontinued the services of telephone/broadband from 18^th December, 2015.  The present complaint was filed in the year 2016 was based on continuous cause of action and is therefore, well within limitation.
44.  As regards the deficiency in service, the 240 complaints enumerated by the complainant in his complaint are testimony to the ordeal, sufferings and harassment faced by him through out  the period the broadband services remained attached to his landline telephone right from 2006 to 2015.  The admission of the OP in their letter dated 14 December, 2015 that there were problems with the line due to distance, cable quality are also adding fire to the issue raised by the complainant.  Further admission of the OP that on some occasions rebates in rental were also provided also prove beyond doubt that something was amiss. What  prompted the OP to be so gracious in favour of the complainant by granting rebate in the rentals is nothing more than the deficiency on their part in rectifying the defect in the telephone services. The ignorance and callousness of OP in replying to the various letters, emails written by the complainant to it also go to prove that its broadband system was awry.    It is beyond our comprehension as to what prevailed upon the complainant to cling on to the OP for  a long period of nine years despite all odd and sufferings, roaming around the offices of OP for redressal of his grievance towards broadband services offered by OP. The OP has tried to prove on record that the landline telephone services provided to the complainant were upto the mark whereas the complainant  raised dispute about the broadband services offered by the OP. The documents placed on record by the complainant  show that there was very less usage of broadband services as it did not work.  The complainant has  aptly   been able to establish deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
45.   Therefore, for the foregoing conclusions arrived at by us, we are satisfied that there was deficiency and  negligence  on the part of OP which prompted the complainant to stop making payment of the telephone Bills. Accordingly, the Complaint is partly allowed and  OP is directed to waive off the  outstanding bills shown pending against the telephone No.25506345 till date, remove the telephone accessories from the flat of the complainant and refund the security deposit, if any, received from the complainant. For  the deficiency in service which compelled the complainant to knock at the door of this Commission, the OP is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental agony and disruption in his non-professional services.  Let this order be complied with  within thirty days of receipt of copy of this order.          

A copy of this order shall be supplied to parties to the dispute free of cost  under Regulation 21 of CPR, 2020 on a written requisition/application being made by them in the name of  President of this Commission.

 

RICHA JINDAL                        ANIL KUMAR KOUSHAL                SONICA MEHROTRA

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT