BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.777/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 23^rd  February 2017

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member                                       

1.     The complainant filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against, the opposite party alleging unfair trade practice and seeking a direction to refund Rs.1,999/- paid towards Reliance-3 dongle and Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the mental agony, harassment and waste of time with other reliefs.
2.     The internet dongle purchased on 02.01.2015, had activation problem since from the beginning.  After lapse of 10 days the dongle activated, but the speed was below 50 kbps as against 1 mbps.  On complaint to the customer care center on 14.01.2015, a complaint number has been provided on 25.01.2015 with an assurance of resolving the problem within 3 days.  A month later, complainant was asked to pay Rs.2,045/- the rent for the preceding month.  On 28.02.2015, an executive approached him to solve the problem, but the dongle was already blocked for non-payment.  The service executive demanded for clearance of the dues before taking the necessary action.  On 18.05.2015, a reply was received from retention team, who offered a discount of Rs.200/- in the monthly bill.  Subsequently, the complainant received information from a stranger, about initiation of criminal proceeding against him for the recovery of Rs.1,945/-.  On 08.09.2015, narrating all the facts called for necessary particulars, but no reply has been received from opposite party.  Ultimately, on 19.11.2015, the complainant received intimation of criminal case for non-payment of Rs.1,945/-.  Hence, the aggrieved complainant filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.      The opposite party admits the sale of Reliance -3 internet dongle through its executive on 02.01.2015.  The problem faced in activation has been denied as false.  It is ascertained that, the dangle remained unused until 12^th January 2015, despite of activation.  The browsing speed depends on the geographical areas, where the dongle is used.  The customer care department has provided all possible support to the quality service to its customer by registering the complaint with a specified number.  The opposite party admits the demand of the monthly rental and Rs.2,045/- towards usuage.  The discount of Rs.200/- offered was admitted and the same was to maintain good customer relationship.  The opposite party admits the initiation of proceedings for the recovery of dues.  All other allegations are denied as false and there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To establish the facts, the complainant lead his evidence by filing affidavit with documents.  Opposite party not lead their evidence.  Both parties not filed the written arguments and also not addressed arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders
5.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party, in not activating the internet dongle with specified speed and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2.  What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The internet dongle purchased has not been activated immediately on purchase from the opposite party executive, as promised.  The speed was comparatively very slower.  The same has been informed to the opposite party, but no immediate action taken by opposite party, to set right the problem. 
8.    On repeated demands the opposite party executive promised to provide appropriate services, but failed.
9.     The opposite party contended that, the system was activated immediately, but the same was remained unused for few days.  Further contended that, the required browsing speed is dependent on the proximity of the user to the tower set up, location of usuage of the gadget also plays a major role apart from geographical location.  However, the complainant has experienced a browsing speed of 1 mbps when the gadget was used in opposite party’s office.  Further, the intimation of criminal proceeding was to collect the dues only.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service and they are not liable to pay any damages as sought.  As such, prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
10. The material available on record, established that the complainant purchased an internet dongle gadget from opposite party executive at Mysuru.  As there was delay in activation of the gadget, and on failure to attain the assured browsing speed, the complainant alleged deficiency in service.  There was immediate activation, the failure to attain the requisite speed was due to geographical location of usuage of the gadget and the proximity to the tower set up etc.,  Further, since there was non-payment of rental for the usuage, the initiation of proceedings for the same in the court of law has been justified as correct.  Therefore, we opine that, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and they are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
11. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following:   

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give a copy of this order to both parties as per rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 23^rd February 2017)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER