DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2016
Date of institution: 11.02.2016 Date of decision : 25.11.2016
Mehak Batta daughter of Sudhir Batta through attorney Shri Sudhir Batta son of R.R. Batta resident of House No.3, Vishal Bhawan, Modern Enclave, Baltana, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) Pin 140603.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. The Connect through its Quadrant Televentures Ltd. (Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd. Autocars Compound, Adalat Road, Aurangabad 431005 (Maharashtra).
2. The Connect through its Quadrant Televentures Ltd. (Formerly known as HFCL Infotel Ltd.), Corporate Office, B-71, Phase-VII, Industrial Focal Point, Mohali 160055 (Punjab).
3. The Connect through Gobind Infotel, SCO No.451-452, 1st Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160035. (Given up vide statement dated 21.09.2016).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri Sudhir Kumar Batta, authorised representative of the complainant.
Shri Karun Kumar, counsel for OP No.1 and 2.
OP No.3 already given up.
ORDER
By Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.
1. The present complainant was filed by the complainant through her attorney Shri Sudhir Kumar Batta (father of the complainant). The complainant had applied for the Wi Fi connection with O.P. No.3 and the same was provided vide No.
DSLS 198730 and the same was activated on 25.08.2015 and thereafter Wi Fi connection was functioning smoothly and the payments of bills were being made regularly on monthly basis.
The complainant alleged that on 14.12.2015 to 19.12.2015 the aforesaid Wi Fi connection started giving problems daily as no signal of Wi Fi was available and complainant contacted the Customer Care No.0172-5055355 and lodged complaints and every time assurances were given that the Wi Fi connection would be set right within four hours. On 20.12.2015, the Wi Fi connection was not functional and the complainant again lodged complaint with Customer Care at No.0172-5055355 and an assurance was given that Wi Fi connection will be set right within four hours. Similar complaints were also lodged again and again on various dates from 21.12.2015 to 09.01.2016 but the Wi Fi connection was non functional and nobody from reputed company came forward to attend the complaints and set the Wi Fi connection functional.
This caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and her family by the OPs. On 28.12.2015, she sent a legal notice through her counsel to the OPs by courier for restoration of Wi Fi connection and to pay the damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and for mental agony, harassment and losing her precious time in lodging complaints again and again for the last 29 days i.e. from 14.12.2015 to 09.01.2016 and from 23.01.2016 to 27.01.2016. Inspite of repeated complaints, no attention was paid to attend the complaints and restore the Wi Fi connection of the complainant. On 10.01.2016 Engineer of the OPs installed a new instrument to set right Wi Fi connection but the complainant again lodged complaints daily from 23.01.2016 to 27.01.2016 as there was no signal of Wi Fi after 5.00 p.m. on all those days and the complaints were not resolved till 27.01.2016 and thereafter there was again no signal from 02.02.2016 to 06.02.2016 and complaints were lodged again but the complaints were not cleared. Lastly the complainant prayed for acceptance of this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service, for mental harassment and loss of precious time in lodging complaints again and again.
2. After service of notice of complaint upon the OPs, OP No.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version to the complaint taking preliminary objections that this complaint is not maintainable in the present form; it is filed with malafide intention; no cause of action to file the present complaint; present complaint is nothing but a misuse of law; this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain or try the present complaint; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and they sought dismissal of complaint on above stated grounds. Thereafter OP No.1 and OP No.2 gave parawise reply and they denied all the allegations made against them but admitted the lodging of complaints mentioned in Para No.5 of the complaint. They stated that there is no major defect in the internet connection on the part of the OPs. Complaints, if any, were due to weak signal and port resetting which was resolved by the OPs. They denied service of legal notice upon them. Lastly they prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove the case, the authorised representative of the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of legal notice Ex.C-1; original courier receipt Ex.C-2; SMS details Ex.C-3 and bank statement Ex.C-4.
4. Evidence of OP No.1 and 2 consists of affidavit of Ashwinder Singh Bhangu, their Deputy Manager Ex.OP-1/1; copies of special power of attorney Ex.OP-1 and internet details Ex.OP-2.
5. We have heard the complainant and counsel for OP No.1 and 2 we have gone through the written arguments of the OP and record of the file. Authorised representative of the complainant and learned counsel for OP No.1 and 2 argued on the lines of their pleadings and submissions respectively. During arguments, authorised representative of the complainant argued that he has mentioned in Para No.8 of the complaint that he is a Govt. servant and further argued that in order to pursue this complaint he has to take 15 leaves worth Rs.30,000/- from the office to attend this Forum in the interest of justice for which he is entitle to cost of litigation besides compensation. So authorised representative of complainant has actually spent a loss of Rs.30,000/- for perusing the complaint in the interest of justice.
We observe that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs as she has availed services from the OPs for consideration which is proved by her through account statement from 1st September, 2015 to 22nd March, 2016 vide Ex.C-4. As the cause of action arose to the complainant at Baltana, where the Wi Fi connection is connected and deficiency in service took place, so this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon this matter and this Forum has also got pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the claim claimed in the complaint is Rs.50,000/- which is less than Rs.Twenty lakhs. Further this complaint is filed well within limitation period of two years on 11.02.2016 from the date of cause of action which arose in December, 2015. So all the preliminary objections taken by the OPs are not sustainable as per Consumer Law.
On merits, complainant has alleged that complainant has made many complaints to the OPs about non functioning of Wi Fi connection but the OPs did not bother to solve the issue of the complainant. The complainant made complaints daily from 21.12.2015 to 09.01.2016 and then from 23.01.2016 to 27.01.2016, but in vain. Complainant has proved the complaints made to the OPs from 25th December, 2015 till 7th January, 2016 vide Ex.C-3. Though the OPs in Para No.5 of the reply admitted to the extent that the complaint were lodged with the Customer Care but stated that the OPs attended the complaints and resolved by the Technical Department. So the OPs admitted that complaints were made to them but they failed to prove that they resolved the issue immediately by leading any kind of evidence or otherwise. Even non functioning of Wi Fi connection time and again is enough to hold that the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant. Further the Ops denied service of legal notice upon them. Complainant has proved legal notice dated 28.12.2015 by placing copy of it on record vide Ex.C-1 and its postal receipts vide Ex.C-2. Therefore, the Ops failed to resolve the issue of complainant after service of legal notice upon them proves that the OPs are not only deficiency in providing service to the complainant but also remained negligent in resolving the issue despite service of legal notice upon them and thereby caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant and her family for which they are legally entitled to be compensated.
In view of above said discussions, the OPs are held not only deficient in providing service to the complainant but also negligent in resolving the issue of complainant. Therefore, OP No.1 and OP No.2 are directed to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty thousand only) on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation taking into consideration the fact that the authorised representative of the complainant has appeared 15 times meaning thereby he took 15 leaves worth Rs.30,000/- to pursue the complaint in the interest of justice.
The OPs are directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of order till its actual realisation failing which OP No.1 and 2 are liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 11.11.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 25.11.2016
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Presiding Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
