CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/408/16

          Date of Institution:-   17.10.2016

          Order Reserved on:- 15.12.2023

                       Date of Decision:-     11.03.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ms. Rakhi Banerjee

166, GF, ESIC Colony,

Sector-56, Noida, U.P.

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

MTS India

Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.

A-194, Phase-I, Okhla Industrial Area,

New Delhi - 110020

  .…..Opposite Party

    ORDER

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that on 24.03.2015 she has taken MTS 3G plus post-paid Wi-Fi data card for internet connection on the basis of advertisement from the OP. The OP has promised uninterrupted 9.18mbps speed for the fixed plan of Rs.550/- per month plus service tax and also provided 5GB day and night i.e. 10GB unlimited usage per month. It was assured that said 3G plus Wi-Fi internet connection would be of uninterrupted 3G speed in Delhi and at her house at Noida. She has paid Rs.2000/- in cash to the OP on the delivery of original box. She has been facing poor customer care services of the OP. The speed of the internet service was slow at Lajpat Nagar-4 and also at Noida. She made several calls to customer care of OP but she was instructed to re-load Mblaze ultra Wi-Fi software or assured that executive will visit to check the speed within 7 days but without any result. Sometimes, the message is received that complaint has been resolved without visiting the premises. She has been paying the bill in time despite the poor service of the OP. She has been getting message 20 days before the due date to pay the bill. The OP has stopped services even without any notice. She came to know from customer care that service is stopped as date usages is more than 5 GB during day time. She is the sole user so the question of overuse does not arise. The OP has never deducted the charges for period during which services remained suspended for the alleged over usage of data. The OP used to charge extra payment for late deposit of bill. The OP has even added extra amount of Rs.17 in the bill from March, 2016- April, 2016. The OP has failed to resolve the issue of low speed and extra bill so she requested to disconnect the services upon which Sh. Shiv Sundar i.e. representative of the OP assured that amount charge during stoppage of service and extra payment shall be adjusted. An email dated 22.04.2016 was received from the OP. She made a complaint dated 11.05.2016 to TRAI upon which Sh. Manoj Service Engineer visited at her premises at Noida on 18.05.2016 and informed that internet services is very poor and it is not of 9.18mbps as promised. The service engineer gave his report dated 18.05.2016. She has requested to OP to refund the charges vide email dated 18.05.2016. She has paid the bill till May, 2016 but services were barred in June, 2016. She received an SMS on 07.06.2016 that MTS data card has crossed 100% usage and high speed is now restricted as per fair usage policy. The OP has raised the bill from June, 2016-August, 2016 without providing any services. A legal notice dated 29.07.2016 has been issued to the OP. There is deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

2. The OP has filed the reply to the effect that complainant has purchased post-paid 3G plus MTS data card. The plan was REVB-550-5GB day, 5GB night-unlimited. The complainant has approached with poor internet connection. The OP has time and again approached the complainant to fix the grievance but she was unreachable. The complainant has subsequently has failed to pay the bills and services was barred in 2016 due to non-payment of Rs.1789/-. The complainant has agreed with the terms and conditions of the services. The OP has not promised 100% network at all times. The complainant has purchased internet dongle without any pressure. The internet connectivity and speed are dependent on the factors like software uses by the user, window firewall installed in the computer system, malware in the system, use of dongle/computer in the basement and number of persons using the internet. The slow speed is during peak heavy traffic hours and this fact has been communicated to the complainant at the time of purchase of internet data card. No technical visit was made by OP to the house of the complainant. The connection provided to the complainant is good but complainant failed to pay the bill due to which services were temporarily suspended. The complainant has used the data which is apparent from the invoices from May, 2015-August, 2016. The payment reminder was sent in the email dated 11.05.2016. The allegations of the complainant are false and denied.

3. The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein she has reiterated her stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments of the written statement.

4. The parties were directed to lead the evidence.

5. The complainant has filed her own affidavit wherein she has corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents Ex.C-1/A to C-8/F.

6. The OP has filed the affidavit of Ms. Neera Sharma in evidence wherein she has corroborated the version of written statement and placed reliance on the documents Ex.OP-1.

7. We have heard the complainant and perused entire material placed on record.

8. It is clear from the material on record that complainant has taken post-paid 3G plus MTS data card of plan no.REVB-550-5GB day, 5GB night-unlimited with 9.18 mbps speed and 10GB unlimited (5GB day and 5GB night) from the OP.

9. The grievance of the complainant is that the speed of the internet was very poor from the very beginning and even OP has charged extra in one bill and she used to receive SMS before date to pay the due amount. Her grievances have not been redressed and even service engineer has reported that services are very poor and not in accordance with the plan purchased by her though all the allegations are denied by the OP.

10. The complainant has taken the plan which was being used by her at Noida as well as at Lajpat Nagar-4. The speed of the internet cannot be same at all times at both the places. The speed becomes low during peak hours for which OP cannot be blamed.

11. The complainant has not come forward with the plea that internet connection was poor at one place or at both the places during the day or at night. Mere bold assertion of poor connectivity at both places is of no use.

12. The complainant has been using the connection since May, 2015 but there is nothing on the record that she has lodged the complainant regarding slow speed till December, 2015.

13. The OP has replied vide email dated 15.12.2015 to the complaint of the complainant that she has utilized 80% of high speed data on the current tariff plan to which complainant has not placed on record any document to controvert it.

14. The page 3 of the reply filed by the OP shows that complainant has used 6.6GB in July, 2015, 6.4GB in August 2015, 6GB in September 2015, 4GB in October 2015, 4.9GB in November, 2015, 5GB in December 2015, 6.2GB in January, 2016, 3.6GB in February, 2016, 4.2GB in March 2016, 6.3GB In April 2016, 7.1GB in May 2016 and 9.9GB in July, 2016. Ex.C-4/E is a reply to the email of complainant from the OP which shows that complainant has crossed the threshold of high speed of data so she is getting speed up to 32kbps. A data of 5360mb during day and 1347mb data during night has consumed till 13.04.2016 with speed booster pack. There is no document on record to controvert the usage of GB by the complainant. The complainant would not have been able to use this much of GB in case there was some connectivity issue.

15. The complainant has placed reliance on Annexure-C-6/A allegedly issued by the service engineer of the OP that connectivity is poor that is below the speed of the plan. We have perused this document. This document is not legible. Nothing could be ascertain from this document that service engineer has reported that speed is poor i.e. which is below 9.18mbps. This document is of no use to the complainant in order to advance her case.

16. The complainant has not paid the bill as alleged by the OP which led to the disconnection of services. The bill of August, 2016 shows that complainant has to pay dues of Rs.1789/-. The complainant has annexed the bills up to January, 2016 as apparent from Ex.C-3/A/B/C/D/E and F. The complainant has failed to explain when she has lastly made the payment. The WS of the OP shows that complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.1789/- by August, 2016. The complainant was not making the payment which led to discontinuation of service.

17. The said discussion shows that complainant has failed to bring evidence to show that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

18. In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to the cost.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 11.03.2024.