Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/669/2015

Davinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Communications Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

10 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/669/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	05/10/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	10/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Davinder Singh S/o Late Shri Mahavir Singh, resident of House No.1288-B, Sector 39-B, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

Reliance Communications Limited, Rajiv Gandhi IT Park, DLF Building, Tower-F, Near Kishangarh, Chandigarh – 160101, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

 

……………  Opposite Party

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Complainant in person.
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased a Broadband connection from the Opposite Party on 05.01.2013 and had been honouring the bills as and when by the Opposite Party. It has been alleged that the Complainant persistently faced erratic broadband speed and never received permanent connectivity as committed by the Opposite Party. The Broadband connection was not working since 08.07.2015 and formal Complaints to Opposite Party were made on 09.07.2015, 10.07.2015, 11.07.2015, 12.07.2015, 14.07.2015, 15.07.2015, 24.07.2015, 29.07.2015, 09.08.2015, 10.08.2015 etc. through e-mails as well as on customer care, but the grievance of the Complainant was not redressed. Conversely, to the utter dismay of the Complainant, the Opposite Party raised the bill for the period the connection was not working, whereupon the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to waive off the bill, but to no avail. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party, in its reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case has pleaded that it cannot be held liable as the issue of the speed could be due to numerous other reasons like faulty device/ inappropriate setting/ low memory/ improper software/ internet congestion/ heavy data sites/ uncleared Cache etc. Further, the Complainant had not cleared the bills for the month of June and July, 2015 for the services provided to him. However, as a goodwill gesture, the answering Opposite Party had provided the waiver of Rs.535/- in the month of July, 2015 to the Complainant for his alleged grievance. It has been asserted that the services of the Complainant were suspended due to non-payment of the bills as raised by the Opposite Party and not for the reasons alleged by the Complainant in the present Complaint. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have perused the record. 

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that inspite non-running of internet in his telephone in the month of July, 2015, bill was raised and the speed of the internet was also not satisfactory.

 

8.      We have gone through the evidence adduced by the Opposite Party and find that the Complainant had not cleared the bills for the month of June & July, 2015. The Opposite Party as a goodwill gesture had provided a waiver of Rs.535/- in the month of July, 2015. Further, it is important to note that the issue of speed could be due to numerous other reasons like faulty device/ inappropriate setting/ low memory/ improper software/ internet congestion/ heavy data sites/ un-cleared Cache etc. Since the Complainant had not cleared the bills for the month of June and July, 2015 for the services provided to him by the Opposite Party, the services of the Complainant were suspended due to non-payment of the bills and not for the reasons alleged by the Complainant in the present Complaint.

 

9.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Op or that the Opposite Party adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th August, 2016                                    

                  Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

      Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

 

Sd/-                    

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”