DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 467/15

Shri Udit Pandey

S/o Shri Anil Kumar Pandey

C/o Mr. Rajender Kr. Sjarma

R/o N-53A, Near Jagat Ram Park

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi                                                                         ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. MTS

Through Director

Sisema Shyam Teleservices Ltd.

A-149, Phas-I, Okhla Industrial Area

New Delhi – 110 020

2. M/s. Muskan Trading

Authorised Brand Retails Outlet

Shop No. UG-5, Plot No. 439

Vasundhra, Sector-12

Ghaziabad, UP                                                                                ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 15.07.2015

Judgment Reserved for : 11.08.2016

Judgment Passed on : 23.08.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Shri Udit Pandey has filed a complaint under Section 12(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as Act), against M/s. MTS (OP-1) and M/s. Muskan Trading (OP-2) alleging deficiency in services.    

2.        The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased internet data card from OP-1 vide bill no. 1793 dated 10.01.2015 for an amount of     Rs. 1000/-.  After purchase, the complainant did not get the speed of internet, as promised by OP-2 while selling the data card.  It is further stated that the complainant made several complaints via emails but his grievance was not addressed.  Feeling aggrieved, he was constraints to file this complaint, wherein he has prayed for refund of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of internet data card, compensation for mental pain and agony and deficiency amounting to Rs. 20,000/-.  Notice of the complaint was duly served on OPs. 

Thereafter, OP-1 filed their WS where they have denied the allegations.  They submitted that OP never promised 100% network and the connectivity and speed were dependent on several other factors like permeability of the walls, texture and structure of the walls and number of users logged in at a specific time.  Thereafter, both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit. 

The complainant examined himself and was relying upon Ex. CW1/A, i.e. acknowledgement receipt, Ex.CW1/2 to Ex.CW1/12 are the emails and Ex.CW1/13 to CW1/18 are the legal notice and postal receipts.  OP examined its authorized representative Shri Keshav Tiwari, who was relying upon EX.OPW1/1-the power of attorney, EX.OPW1/2- the customer agreement form and EX.OPW1/3-the bills in the name of the complainant.

3.        We have heard the arguments and have perused the material placed on record.  The email dated 08.04.2015, written by the complainant to OP, wherein he has stated that he was not getting the expected speed, but neither in his complaint nor in any of his emails, he has mentioned at what rate of speed or how many MBPS connectivity, he was getting. 

            The main grievance of the complainant was with respect to the speed but nowhere, he has mentioned the speed he was promised.  Thus, the complaint is dismissed without any cost as the complainant has failed to prove that there was any deficiency on the part of OP.   

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                  (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President