Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/2

Raghbir Brar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Telephone - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         02

Date of Institution :   2.01.2017

Date of Decision :     31.08.2017

Raghbir Brar aged about 43 years s/o Jeet Singh Brar r/o Village Bir Sikhan Wala Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.  

                                                              ...Complainant

Versus

1. SDO Telephone Exchange, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.
2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (BSNL), General Manager Telecom, Ferozepur.

                                           ........ OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for OPs.

(Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

                                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to provide improved internet services, refund the rent received by them for the period during which connection was not operative and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and as litigation expenses.

2                                                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that complainant is the subscriber of OPs having phone no.01635-239042 and account number 1012153144 and on assurance of Ops that they provide best internet services, complainant has taken broadband connection on his phone number and has been paying monthly rent for this.  It is submitted that for the last one year, services of OPs are very poor and despite paying monthly rent and making complaints, they provide only temporary relief and have not been providing good services. It is further submitted that on 2.12.2016, complainant got registered his complaint regarding their poor broadband services due to Modem Link Failure, but they did not resolve the matter and thereafter, complainant got registered his complaint regarding poor services by Ops to their Nodal Officer. On this, employees of OPs showed on system that complaint of complainant has been resolved on 20.12.2016, but in reality, his internet services were not restored. Complainant again registered his complaint no.1035714407 on 20.12.2016, but they again showed the status of complaint resolved on system without restoration of services on 22.12.2016. Complainant further lodged complaint on 22.12.2016, which was assigned to ITO and thereafter, his internet services were restored by OPs on 26.12.2016. Complainant made several requests to OPs to restore the internet services and not to charge him for the period during which internet connection was not working properly, but instead of listening to his complaints and requests, Ops sent bill for Rs.495/- as complainant has already deposited Rs.252/-in advance as rent. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to provide improved internet services, refund the rent received by them for the period during which connection was not operative and for further directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                                   The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9.01.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                                        OPs  filed reply taking preliminary objections that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and it is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they have been providing best telephone and internet services and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has disclosed the wrong facts. It is further averred that there was some internal problem in the premises of complainant regarding telephone and internet services as he had wrongly put the wires and that was the problem in internet. It is further averred that answering Ops have been providing uninterrupted services to the consumers and there was no problem in their internet services. System of complainant was working properly from 2.12.2016 to 15.12.2016 and there was some technical problem from 16.12.2016 to 21.12.2016. He has been using net services uninterruptedly. Complainant has consumed 6.5 GB date in September/2016, 3.7 GB in October/2016; 3.5 GB in Nov./2017, 5.2 GB in Dec/2016 and 8.4 GB in Jan/2017. It is reiterated that due to some internal problem in premises of complainant from 22.12.2016 to 26.12.2016 due to change of wires by complainant, there was some net problem and that problem too has been ratified on complaint of complainant. There is no fault or deficiency on the part of Ops. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against OPs and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and all the other allegations levelled by complainant alongwith allegations regarding relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                                                  The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 5 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                                                 Ld Counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar as Ex OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to 4 and then, closed the same on behalf of OPs.

7                                                                   Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally contended that complainant is the subscriber of OPs and he has taken broadband connection on his phone number and has been paying monthly rent for this. It is submitted that for the last one year, services of OPs are very poor and despite paying monthly rent and making complaints, they provide only temporary relief and have not been providing good services. On 2.12.2016, complainant got registered his complaint regarding their poor broadband services due to Modem Link Failure, but they did not resolve the matter and thereafter, complainant got registered his complaint regarding poor services by Ops to their Nodal Officer. On this, employees of OPs showed on system that complaint of complainant has been resolved on 20.12.2016, but in reality, his internet services were not restored. Complainant again registered his complaint on 20.12.2016, but they again showed the status of complaint resolved on system without restoration of services on 22.12.2016. Complainant further lodged complaint on 22.12.2016, which was assigned to ITO and thereafter, his internet services were restored by OPs on 26.12.2016. Complainant made several requests to OPs to restore the internet services and not to charge him for the period during which internet connection was not working properly, but instead of listening to his complaints and requests, Ops sent bill for Rs.495/- as complainant has already deposited Rs.252/-in advance as rent. All this amounts to deficiency in service and he has prayed for accepting the complaint.

8                                                                  To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld Counsel for Ops argued that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Complaint is liable to be dismissed. OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that they have been providing best telephone and internet services and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has disclosed the wrong facts. It is further averred that there was some internal problem in the premises of complainant regarding telephone and internet services as he had wrongly put the wires and that was the problem in internet. It is further averred that answering Ops have been providing uninterrupted services to the consumers and there was no problem in their internet services. System of complainant was working properly from 2.12.2016 to 15.12.2016 and there was some technical problem from 16.12.2016 to 21.12.2016. He has been using net services uninterruptedly. Complainant has consumed 6.5 GB date in September/2016, 3.7 GB in October/2016; 3.5 GB in Nov./2017, 5.2 GB in Dec/2016 and 8.4 GB in Jan/2017. It is reiterated that due to some internal problem in premises of complainant from 22.12.2016 to 26.12.2016 due to change of wires by complainant, there was some net problem and that problem too has been ratified by OPs on complaint of complainant. There is no fault or deficiency in service on the part of Ops. It is further averred that no cause of action arises against OPs and complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and all the other allegations levelled by complainant alongwith allegations regarding relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                                                  We have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant as well as OPs and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

10                                                       After careful perusal of record placed on file and pleadings of parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant has obtained broadband connection from OPs and is using internet services on monthly rent basis. For last one year, internet facility provided by Ops is interrupted and is not of good quality and despite repeated complaints by complainant, Ops did not restore the services and further on complaint with Nodal Officer, they restored the services but till now, services provided by Ops are not up to mark, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, OPs have stressed mainly on the point that there is some fault in the premises of complainant as he has put wrong wires and that is the reason for interrupted internet services to his connection. OPs further asserted that on complaint of complainant, they have resolved the issue and now there is no problem in his connection and complainant has been using the internet facility without any complaint.  To prove his case, complainant has relied upon document Ex C-2 which is copy of complaints made by complainant with OPs for interrupted and poor facility of internet services provided by Ops. Ex C-3 is the copy of complaints made by complainant with OPs regarding problem in his internet connection and on the face of it, this document gives strength to the pleadings of complainant. Ex C-4 and Ex C-5 are copies of e-mails sent by complainant to OPs requesting them to improve their services and to redress his grievance. All this proves that complainant is the consumer of OPs and he has been harassed by Ops due to their act of not paying heed to his requests for providing proper and uninterrupted internet supply. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance. These documents are cogent evidence, authenticity of which can not be ignored and it is proved that OPs failed to redress the grievance of complainant. The only defence taken by OPs that due to wrong wiring, there was some problem in  internet services to his connection does not seem appropriate. It proves that Ops have been deficient in services and they did not provide services as per rules. Act of Ops in not paying heed to the requests of complainant and even to the complaints filed by complainant amounts to trade mal practice on their part. All this proves that Ops have caused great harassment to complainant by charging  amount for the period during which internet services were not restored and by providing interrupted and poor quality internet facility to his connection. All this caused harassment and mental tension to complainant, which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses.

11                                             From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, this Forum is fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in providing uninterrupted and regular services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not restoring the internet services in time despite repeated complaints by complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to provide better and improved internet services to connection of complainant and to refund the charges for the period when complainant got interrupted supply of internet services from Modem Link Failure System of OPs. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.2,500/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 31.08.2017

                                               Member                              President

                 (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)