BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Harvinder Singh, aged about 41 years, son of Sh. Charanjit Singh R/o Village Mallour, P.O. Chaurmastpur, Tehsil and District Ambala, Haryana- 134003 at present residing at R/o H.No.9, New Milap Nagar, Ambala City.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Net Plus Broadband Moti Cable, Shop No.95, Ambala-Hissar Road, New Milap Nagar, Manav Chowk, Ambala, Haryana-134003 through its owner/partner/authorized representative (Mob.No.+91-85298-11313 & 79887-86624)
2. Netplus Broadband, Head office:- 5th Floor, Opposite Gurdev Hospital, The Grand Mall, H-Block, Ludhiana-141012 through its authorized representative. (Mob.No.+91-70875-70875)

Email- customercare@netplus.co.in

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                    Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

Present:-     Complainant in person.                                                                                                                                                                                        Shri Vikas Arora, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.                                                                                                                                        Shri Gaurav Prabhakar, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.6500/- paid towards connection of the internet.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of financial loss, mental agony &physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.25,00/- as litigation expenses.
4. To pay the aforesaid amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from 23.10.2020, till its realization.

2.             Brief facts of the case are that in the month of October, 2021, the complainant was in need of high speed internet connection and for this purpose, he contacted OP No.1 to provide details and connection plans of high speed internet connection. Accordingly, OP No.1 visited the house of complainant and offered him to purchase latest high speed broadband internet connection of fiber cable technology, i.e. Net + Broadband of Fastway Group. OP No.1 assured the complainant that Fastway's Netplus Broadband on fiber cable would definitely provide extraordinary internet speed at affordable cost. The complainant told OP No.1 that for his professional work, he needs high speed wi-fi internet connection for uploading and downloading the professional contents. The complainant also told OP No.1 that he has 43" UHD 4K LED Tv and the channels must be played smoothly and continuously without any obstruction and asked OP No.1 to guide him to purchase best speed plan at affordable cost. OP No.1 showed various plans and asked the complainant to purchase Six Month's 70 MBPS plan as per requirement of the complainant.  OP No.1  assured that the complainant will get 70 Mbps speed with unlimited data and calling and further assured that while using such wi-fi speed, the complainant will not face any problem while doing his professional work or viewing channels on his android LED TV. Believing the version of OP No.l, the complainant agreed to purchase Six Month's plan of 70 Mbps speed as offered by OP No.1. The complainant paid advance amount of Rs.6,500/- in cash i.e. Rs.3600/- for six months connection cost @ 599/- per month, Rs.2,000/- for wi-fi modem and Rs.900/- for towards installation charges to OP No.1 through its owner. When the complainant asked about receipt of the amount paid, OP No.1 through its owner assured that at the time of installation he will provide the same. On 23.10.2021, OP No.1 installed netplus broadband wi-fi fiber internet connection with 70 Mbps speed plan at the house of complainant vide Customer ID No.0004116609. The router was installed just under the 42" LED TV. When the complainant asked about receipt of payment, OP No.1 told that he will hand over the same on next day, but he did not do so. It was assured by OP No.1 that range of wi-fi will remain sufficient in both the rooms of complainant to work anywhere through laptop or any other device.  OP No.1 through its owner got checked the speed through his mobile phone application to the complainant, which was showing upto 65 Mbps up and down. On asking, OP No.1 told that in every plan there remains some variations in speed and there will be no problem in working because this is good speed. The complainant enjoyed the said speed of 65 Mbps upto 15 days only. On 04.10.2021 or thereafter, some of the workers of OP No.1 were inserting more cables in the box installed in front of house of complainant. During that time internet connection was completely dropped/stopped. When the complainant asked them about it, they responded that they are providing more connections. They further assured on asking that it will not affect the connection speed of complainant and told that connection will be restored within 10 minutes. After 10 minutes, when the internet connection restored the LED TV of the complainant started playing the channels with buffering problem, which occurs due to two common reasons, first if internet connection is too slow to stream a video and secondly, the speed at which, the router sends the video to connected internet device, is too slow. The complainant checked the internet speed through his mobile, which was showing around 25-30 Mbps and wi-fi in another room also started showing problem while working on laptop, whereas initially it was 65 Mbps without any problem. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the owner of OP No.1 continuously through telephone to get the issue resolved, who firstly lingered on the matter by saying that speed issue is on account of some technical problem in the area and soon it will be restored as per plan. However, on the next day, when the complainant contacted telephonically, the owner of OP No.1 replied angrily that he has no concern with the issue of speed and further told that his duty is only to install the connection at the destinations.  OP No.1 further told that speed issue is concern of Net Plus company and further asked the complainant to register complaint to customer care number of the company. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant registered first three complaints from his registered mobile phone with OP No.2, but all in vain. One complaint was closed without any doing. Technical representative on behalf of OP No.2 in response to another registered telephonic complaint tried to resolve the issue through any desk application, who told the complainant that there is not an issue of speed and it may be issue of range at the house of complainant. When the complainant after testing the speed told him that it is upto only about 25-30 Mbps then he replied that he can see that there is no issue of speed and it may be issue of range. He further assured that he is getting it noted and soon it will be resolved from the concerned technical department at the spot i.e. at the house of complainant. The complainant again contacted customer care telephone number to inquire as to when someone is visiting at the residence of complainant to resolve the issue of range as earlier told by technical representative of OP No.2, but false assurance was given this time also. Thereafter, on 14.11.2021 the complainant sent a notice through email to OP No.2 mentioning the issue and with a request to resolve the same within 15 days. In reply, OP No.2 asked the complainant through email dated 16.11.2021 to share current status of internet service. In the evening of same day, the complainant sent screenshot after checking the internet speed through mobile application, which showed 18.1 Mbps download and 20.9 Mbps upload speed, which was not as per purchased plan of the complainant, but OP No.2 despite resolving the issue again sent another email on 19.11.2021 asking the complainant to again share current status of internet service. In response thereto the complainant replied through email dated 19.11.2021 that current status has already been shared, but nobody visited the house of the complainant to resolve the issue of speed or range as told by technical representative of OP No.2. Thereafter finding no other option, the complainant had to connect his UHD LED TV through LAN Cable with the router just installed under the said LED TV, from where the wi-fi range was too slow to run the channels or videos without buffering. After connecting LAN cable the LED TV channels could start playing without buffering, but the required internet speed as per purchased plan was not available and that was still existing too slow around 20-25 Mbps due to which the complainant was unable to do his professional work through his laptop. Meanwhile, when the wi-fi speed dropped to 0.94 Mbps of download and 0.06 Mbps of upload then complainant in continuance to previous emails sent another email dated 27.11.2021 to get the issue resolved at the spot after inspection. It was also informed through this email that it seemed that connection plan has been changed from 70 Mbps to 40 Mbps. The complainant also attached the screenshot of speed test with this email, but neither any response was received from OP No.2 in this regard nor any technical expert visited the spot to resolve this issue. Thereafter, complainant sent another email dated 15.12.2021 to OP No.2 mentioning that despite various requests and reminders, OP No.2 did not send any technical expert on the spot to get the issue of low speed and low range resolved. It was also informed to OP No.2 that due to such deficiency in service on their part the complainant is suffering mental harassment as well as financial loss in his professional work, which are to be processed through online, due to non-availability of high speed internet wi-fi. But in reply thereto, OP No.2 again lingered on the matter by saying that they have already escalated case of complainant to the concerned department, who will help the complainant shortly. On the same day, the complainant replied in evening through email that concerned department also failed to visit the house of the complainant to get the issue resolved. Every time false assurances were given to the complainant by OP No.2. Thereafter also complainant kept requesting through emails dated 23.12.2021, 07.01.2022, 10.01.2022, but in reply OP No.2 had sent only emails dated 23.12.2021, 09.01.2022 with the same reply that matter has already escalated to concern department, who will help complainant shortly, but no technical expert visited the spot to inspect the actual problem despite repeated requests. During this time on 09.01.2022 the complainant received telephonic call from OP No.2, who only asked about status of Netplus and after hearing the issue again the OP No.2 only asked the name of local cable operator i.e. OP No.1, but nothing was done on the part of the OPs.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version wherein it took various objections to the effect that the complainant has not complied with the mandatory provisions of the Consumer Protection act, 2019 by not supplying the copy of the documents annexed with the complaint; this complaint is not maintainable; the complainant is misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act; the complaint is false, incorrect and the same is filed with malafide intention;   and the same is an abuse of the process of law, which is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated that the Netplus Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. is an internet service provider (ISP) having unified license availed from Department of Telecommunication (DOT) from Ministry of Government of India. The working of OP No.1 is just to check the working, which was in order. As a matter of fact, OP No.1 got the Lane Cable checked as per the instructions of OP No.2 and working of the same was found in order. OP No.1  had not offered the complainant to purchase Net+Broadband of Fastway Group. The speed of internet is always near to the plan opted by the subscribed; but cannot be constant every time. The speed of the broadband varies on various external factors which are generally not in the control of humans, such as wave length nearby broadband connections in the area etc.. As per the system, the complainant had availed 5 months+1 month free (Total 06 months) broadband plan from OP No.1 and had paid an amount of Rs.3,534/- on 22.10.2021 thereby availing broadband connection till month of April, 2022 and in the complaint under reply, the complainant is claiming full amount of Broadband, which has already been exhausted by the complainant and as such, the complainant is stopped from claiming such amount. Netplus Broadband wi-fi fiber internet connection was installed by OP No.1  at the instructions of OP No.2. OP No.1 was never given anything; so the question of issuing receipt or giving assurance to issue receipt on next day to the complainant does not arise at all. The speed of internet connection was in order and moreover, there was no any complaint of the complainant regarding buffering problem of the channel; nor any complaint qua the defect of internet working was reported. No proof to substantiate the alleged facts has been filed with the complaint under reply and more-so, if it was done, the complainant has failed to plead what loss has been caused to him. OP No.1 has nothing to do with the connection of LED TV with LAN Cable. There can be problem in LED TV, the operating system of LED TV can also be slow or there can be some problem in wiring. For everything, the OP's cannot be blamed. The complaint whatever was given to OP No.2 was attended and the same was made in order to the satisfaction of the complainant. Speed as per plan means, the complainant was getting the right speed as per plan opted, OLT flapped means even the  OP No.2  through the  OP No.1  flapped the device; which is a transmission device and provides broadband services to all the subscribers. Drop Fiber Joint means external fault i.e. if there is cut in the optical Fiber laid, which could be due to rain, wind storm, passing of truck etc. or other interruption. As a matter of fact, Fastway is sister concern of OP No.2  dealing with Cable TV services and has nothing to do with OP No.2, which deals in providing broadband services. The complainant is regular subscriber of Cable TV Services provided by OP No.2 through its sister concern namely "M/s.Fastway Transmissions Private Limited" and the complainant is as on date using service of OP No.2 without any protest or demur. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version  wherein it also took almost the same objections and contentions as were taken by OP No.1. However, the only additional contentions raised by OP No.2 was that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of OP No.2 as party to this complaint. All the allegations are pertaining to OP No.1 who is local broadband operator of OP No.2 and therefore OP No.1 is responsible in the matter for providing any service to the complainant, as per agreement dated 17.07.2020 executed between OPs No.1 and 2. There is no principle and agent relationship between OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant is still using the broadband services of OP No.2. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with cost.
5.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 and closed the evidence on his behalf. Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Kuldeep Kaur son of Shri Sanjay Kumar, Partner of OP No.1 –Net Plus Broadband Moti Cable, Shop No.95, Ambala Hissar Road, New Milap Nagar, Manav Chowk, Ambala as Annexure RX1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Rajeev Sharma, Senior Manager Operations, M/s Netplus Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. having its office situated at 5^th Floor, The Grand Walk Mall, Ferozepur Raod, Ludhiana as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP no.2.
7.           The complainant submitted that by not providing the speed of internet which was promised at the time of purchase of the said plan, the OPs are  have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service.
8.           On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 while reiterating the contentions made in the written version submitted that the speed of internet connection was in order and moreover, neither any complaint regarding buffering problem of the channel; nor any complaint qua the defect of internet working was reported by the complainant. He further submitted that no proof to substantiate the alleged facts has been filed with the complaint, the complainant has failed to plead what loss has been caused to him. The complainant was getting the right speed as per plan opted by him. The Fastway is sister concern of OP No.2 dealing with Cable TV services and has nothing to do with it, which deals in providing broadband services. The complainant is regular subscriber of Cable TV Services provided by OP No.2 through its sister concern namely "M/s.Fastway Transmissions Private Limited" and the complainant is as on date using service of OP No.2 without any protest or demur.
9.           Learned counsel for OP No.2 while reiterating the contentions made in the written version submitted that all the allegations are pertaining to OP No.1 who is local broadband operator of OP No.2 and therefore OP No.1 is responsible in the matter for providing any service to the complainant, as per agreement dated 17.07.2020 executed between OPs No.1 and 2. There is no principle and agent relationship between OPs No.1 and 2. The complainant is still using the broadband services of OP No.2.
10.           The plea of the complainant is that he purchased six Months’ Plan of 70 Mbps speed, which was denied by the OPs. However, to prove this fact the complainant has placed on very reliable evidence i.e. the document, Annexure C-3 having been issued by the OPs only which shows that on 23.10.2021, the complainant was sold the internet net+ broadband connection with data limit of 976563.0 GB with Band Width 70Mbps. Under these circumstances, the stand of the OPs that the complainant never purchased Six Months’ Plan of 70 Mbps speed is falsified from the document, Annexure C-3. It is significant to mention here that there are number of emails having been sent by the complainant to the OPs starting from 14.11.2021 to 09.01.2022 (Annexures C-4 and C-6 colly), wherein he made number of requests to the OPs to rectify the problem of low internet speed instead of 70 Mbps but it is coming out from the replies of the OPs vide email 16.11.2021 (Annexure C-4, page 11), 17.12.2021 (Annexure C-6, page 15) 24.12.2021 (Annexure C-6, page 16),  09.01.2022 (Annexure C-6, page 16) that except saying that “We are sorry to hear that you are facing issue regarding services. We would like to inform you that we have already escalated your case to concern department for same will help you shortly”, there is nothing on record that actually the grievance of the complainant was resolved by the OPs. The complainant has also placed on record the screen shots of internet speed test, Annexure C-5, wherein it is mentioned that “Your Internet connection is very slow”. On the other hand, the OPs have failed to place on record any day to day technical report of the said internet connection to prove that the speed of the same was never slow and remained constant near 70 Mbps. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has proved his case to the effect that he faced the problem of very slow speed of internet against the promised speed of 70 Mbps.  
11.           Complainant has strongly contended that because the complainant was not satisfied with the said internet connection therefore he had to connect his UHD LED TV through LAN Cable with the router just installed under the said LED TV, from where the wi-fi range was too slow to run the channels or videos without buffering, meaning thereby that the purpose for which the internet connection was purchased stood defeated. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered view that if we order refund of the amount paid by the complainant to the OPs, that will meet the ends of justice. However, because the complainant has failed to place on record that any document to show that he had paid an amount of Rs.6500/- to the OPs and on the other hand, OP No.1 has fairly admitted that only an amount of Rs.3534/- stood received from the complainant on 22.10.2021 qua the connection in question, therefore, we are ordering refund of the amount of Rs.3534/- only to the complainant.
12.           At the same time, it is also held that because OP No.1 has admitted in its written version that it issued connection of internet to the complainant and provided services on behalf of OP No.2 and OP No.2 also in its written version admitted that the services of internet were provided to the complainant by OP No.1, being service provider of OP No.2, therefore both the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant in the matter.
13.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, jointly and severally, in the following manner:-  
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.3,534/- to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from 22.10.2021, i.e the date of payment of the amount, till its realization.   
    2. To pay lumpsum amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and also litigation expenses.

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

  Announced:- 01.07.2024