<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1905/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.C.Surendranath Reddy,# 29, 3rd Cross,Chikka Gullappa Layout,Hennur Bande,Kalyannagar Post,Bangalore – 560 043.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Reliance Communication Ltd.,‘H’ Block, 1st Floor,Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,Navi Mumbai – 400 710.INDIA.2. Telesmith Inc,# 4 M/417, 3rd Block,HRBR Layout, Kammanahalli Main Road,Bangalore – 560 043.India.Advocate – Sri.Shankar S.Bhat<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased “Reliance Netconnect” USB Modem (data card) from OP.2 on 18.12.2007 wherein it is promised to provide uninterrupted Internet connection with good connectivity and good speed. He has paid in all Rs.3,180/-. Thereafter some how he could not get the expected result, the product did not work to his satisfaction. Then he immediately contacted the OP in the month of January 2008. They directed him to approach ‘Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd.’. They on examining USB Modem found that it is defective and recommended for replacement. Though it was replaced with a new USB Modem the result is one and the same. The speed of the Internet is very poor from the day of activation. There is a problem of interrupted Internet connectivity, slow downloading of web pages and sudden disconnection. Complainant was doing a research in his subject. The purpose for which he purchased USB Modem from Reliance Communications is defeated. Thus he sustained a professional loss as well as mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to compensate him went in futile. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the manufacturer of the said product is not made as a party in this complaint. Hence complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. Complainant entered into an agreement wherein there are certain terms and conditions incorporated. It is the complainant who with his free will and volition opted to subscribe for the services provided by the OP.1 in a tariff plan option Swift 40. At no point of time OP directed the complainant to contact ‘Adonis Electronics Pvt. Ltd’. If there is any defect in the manufacture of the said product, complainant has to approach authorized service center (ASC) of OP.1. But he has not done so. Net connectivity depends upon numerous factors like coverage area, network utilization, computer / laptop being used, software issued etc. The allegations of the complainant that the said modem did not give him the satisfactory service is bald and vague. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay the compensation. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased “Reliance Netconnect” USB Modem which provides wireless internet connectivity on 18.12.2007 from OP.2 for a valid consideration of Rs.3,180/-. Complainant expected that by utilization of the said Modem he is going to get uninterrupted Internet connectivity with a good speed, but all his hopes went in futile. The speed of the Internet was very poor. There is a problem with interrupted Internet connectivity, slow downloading of web pages, sudden disconnection. That is why he approached the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended by the complainant that at the instructions of the OP he contacted “Adonis Electronics” on examining the said modem they confirmed it is defective one and recommended for replacement. A replacement certificate is also produced. According to the complainant even after the replacement Modem was not functioning properly to his satisfaction. Again he approached the OP. There was no positive response. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the complainant that as he is doing research in his subject he could not properly utilize the said USB Modem because of its inherent defect. Thus suffered both mental agony and financial loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, hence claimed the same. What is the basis to claim Rs.2,50,000/- is not known. The so called Modem costed him only Rs.3,180/-. It is contended by the OP that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions entered into between themselves and the complainant with regard to the use of the Modem. Actually there is no proof that OP directed the complainant to approach “Adonis Electronics”. On the other hand they directed him to approach authorized service center (ASC) of the manufacturer. On the perusal of the defence set out by the OP, ASC on examination of the said Modem issued a certificate for replacement. Accordingly it was replaced. So this admission comes to the aid of complainant with regard to manufacturing defect in the said Modem. <br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the complainant that even replaced Modem was not working satisfactorily, for that OP has given an explanation that the net connectivity depends on numerous factors like coverage area, network utilization, computer / laptop being used, software issues etc. Whether all these facts were brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of sale of Modem is not known. So that defence of the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to save their skin out of sin.<br /> <br /> 10. We are satisfied that the evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. As against the unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake may be to save their skin out of sin. Under such circumstances complainant for no fault of his must have been made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant invested his hard earned money of Rs.3,180/- to purchase the defect free USB Modem. Unfortunately he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment.<br /> <br /> 11. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Of course the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- as a compensation appears to be baseless. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-, litigation cost Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 18th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />