DATE OF FILING : 23-08-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 25-09-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 07-01-2013.
Anup Kumar Ghosh,
s/o. Dashurathi Ghosh,
29/1/1, Panchanan Chatterjee Lane,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711101.------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. Reliance Business Solution,
Field Engineering Officer ( on duty ),
Star Universal, o/o, 123/2, Netaji Subhas Road,
Howrah – 711101.
2. Appellate Authority,
Reliance Communication Ltd.
Reliance House ( 3rd floor ),
34, Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata – 700071. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986,
as amended against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service U/S 2( 1 )( g ), 2( 1 )( o ) of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant, Anup Kr. Ghosh has prayed for direction upon the O.Ps. to adjust the amount of the internet bandwith rental charge of Rs. 499/- and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for loss of injury as the o.ps. being the service provider for internet Broad Band Connection to the complainant and in spite of receipt of payment of Rs. 500/- vide cheque dated 11-05-2011 of Axis Bank, Howrah, against COMBO PLAN 300 KBPS with landline value of free call of Rs. 50/-, did not adjust the internet bandwith rental charge of Rs. 499/- according to ratio of Lower Speed against 300 KBPS. Further correspondences with the o.ps. did not yield any tangible result. Hence the case.
2. As the o.p. no. 1 in spite of receipt of notice did not file the written
version, the case was heard ex parte against him.
3. The o.p. no. 2 in filing written version contended interalia that the
complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act ; that the Enclosure C/2 filed by the complainant is false and purposive ; that the o.p. no. 2 never received any letter of complaint from the complainant. So the case should be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties three points arose for determination :
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. POINT NO. 1
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no. 2 argued that by virtue of a License Agreement dated 20-07-2011 for provision of basic telephone service for West Bengal Service Area, Reliance Infocom became the licensed telecom service provider as contemplated by Section 4 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. So the petitioner has no locus standi to file the complaint before this Forum.
5. Be that as it may we are to propound that the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 is a beneficial legislation for speedy remedy to the consumers. This Forum is only to look into if the complainant is a 'Consumer' within the definition of Section 2(1)(d) or whether there occurred any deficiency in service within the meaning of Section 2(g). That apart Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides in no uncertain terms that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the complainant did not commit any wrong in filing this complaint before this Forum for alleged deficiency in service. Be it mentioned that the complainant is a 'Consumer' within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Act. Accordingly we are of view that the complaint is quite maintainable before this Forum.
6. POINT NOS. 2 & 3 :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Admittedly Rs. 500/- was received from the complainant vide cheque no. 094462 dated 11-05-2011 of the Axis Bank Ltd. by the agent of the o.p. no. 2. Enclosure A3 enumerates the type of service to be provided to the complainant. Exhibit B reflects the frustration of the complainant as he was deprived from the specific KBPS from the beginning. The complainant noted the complaint in the Customer Care having no. 1089913080 dated 09-11-2011 and informed to the Nodal Officer on duty. But unfortunately no remedy was effected on the part of the o.p. no. 2. Exhibit C dated 31-12-2011 reflects that the complainant requested the o.p. no. 2 to pass necessary instruction to the concerned authority to adjust the amount of the internet broad band with rental charge of Rs. 499/- according to ratio of LOW speed against 300 KBPS.
7. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute that the complainant is a consumer
under o.ps. In fact, this proposition is not disputed when the o.p. no. 2 ultimately due to the pressure from the complainant requested him to visit personally with the complaint for amicable settlement. This proposal on the part of the o.p. no. 2 amounts to admission of the deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps. Therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 97 of 2012 ( HDF 97 of 2012 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the o.p. no.2 and ex parte against o.p. no. 1 with costs.
The O.P. no. 2 be directed to adjust the amount of the internet bandwith rental charge of Rs. 499/- according to ratio of Lower Speed against 300 KBPS within 15 days from the date of this order.
The o.p. no. 2 be further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment within one month from the date of this order failing the amount shall carry interest @ 12% per annum.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
