Tripura

West Tripura

CC/192/2021

Smt. Bijoylaxmi Sinha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Nabasish Sen - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Roy, Mr.P.Saha

30 Nov 2022

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA
 
CASE No. CC-  192 of  2021
 
Smt. Bijoy Laxmi Sinha
W/O- Lt. Bimal Sinha,
Thakurpall Road,
Near Satsangha Ashram,
Beside Sister Nivedita Girls Hostel,
TRTC Chowmuhai,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura. ...............Complainant.
 
-VERSUS-
 
Sri Nabasish Sen,
Jio Centre Manager,
3rd Floor, Metro Bazar Building,
Surja Chowmohani, P.O. Agartala,
P.S. West Agartala,
District- West Tripura- 799001. ..............Opposite party.
 
     __________PRESENT__________
 
 SRI RUHIDAS PAL
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
 
DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA
 
SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.
 
C O U N S E L
 
For the Complainant : Sri Richard Sinha,
  Sri Prasenjit Saha,
  Sri Kishalay Roy,    
  Learned Advocates.
  
For the O.P. : Sri Malay Datta,
   Learned Advocate.   
 
 
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 30.11.2022.
 
J U D G M E N T
The case arose due to a complaint petition being filed by Smt. Vijay Laxmi Sinha, wife of Late Bimal Sinha, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) against Sri Nabashis Sen, Jio Centre Manager, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.’)  U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
2. The averments of the complaint petition, in brief, is that the Complainant requested for a Jio Fibre connection under a registered order No-0000ITBIK2 dated 24.09.2021 making a payment of Rs.1500/- online along with uploading supporting documents. Thereafter, the installation of the appropriate devices for extending Jio fibre internet connectivity (No. 300427839914) were done. The Complainant was advised by the service representative of Jio Fibre that the activation for the fibre connectivity will be done by 25.09.2021 morning. But, it was observed by the Complainant that on 25.09.2021 the connection was not got activated. The matter had been followed-up by the Complainant's son with the Jio fibre for such non-activation of the connectivity. The representative of the Jio fibre advised the Complainant's son to add some inputs in the Jio App which was downloaded at the instance of the service provider and; accordingly, adding of such inputs had been done. Nevertheless, the connection remained as inactivated. On 26.09.2021, the Complainant again tried to establish communication with the representative of the Jio Fibre through her son but to no avail. Later on, the complainant took up the matter with the Jio Customer Care for resolving the issue and the service request for the same was registered with the service provider which was numbered as SR 000016TWWM. Yet the problem was remained unresolved and no representative from the service provider attended the complaint made by the Complainant with the customer care of the service provider. On 27.09.2021, observing the utter negligence on the part of the service provider, the Complainant called the concerned representative of the service provider demanding for refund of the amount of Rs.1500/-, as deposited by her, for being her intent to withdraw the request for such service. Finally, on 03.10.2021, she got an e-mail from Jio (service provider) that the issue of activation had been resolved and; which was based on complete falsehood. It is alleged by the complainant that due to such negligence in providing service after having received the value for such consideration caused huge loss for her in terms of money for being deprived in participating video conferences, hearings and webinars. It is alleged that despite of making repeated requests for refund of money, the service provider did not bother to activate the internet connectivity nor had they refunded the amount of Rs.1500/- deposited with them. Aggrieved by such inaction and negligence in providing committed service to the Complainant, she filed the instant case to this Commission seeking a total relief of Rs.10,01,500/- which includes amounts for compensation due to negligence and deficiency in service, mental harassment, pain and agony, litigation cost and along with Rs.1500/- paid by her at the time of request for the service. Hence, this case.
3. The O.P. contested the case by filing written statement while refuting and rebutting the entire charges made out by the Complainant. It is submitted that the Complainant made a request for Jio fibre connectivity paying Rs.1500/- as security deposit out of which Rs.500/- is refundable security deposit and Rs.1000/- as non-refundable as being the installation charges. It is also submitted that entire amount of Rs.1500/- is, however, fully refundable to the customer in case the customer intends to discontinue the service following the prescribed official procedures of Jio Fibre, as provided under the terms and conditions, within the trial period of 30 days from the date of activation. It is further submitted that on receipt of the request for such connectivity, the O.P. sent their representative engineer and he installed the device on 24.09.2021 in the premises of the Complainant. The representative engineer, however, discovered that there were technical errors in the form of blinking of red light on the device installed which is why the internet connection could not be established. It is also submitted that on observing such errors on 25.09.2021, the concerned representative of the O.P. contacted with the concerned team of operation and maintenance on the same day assigning the job to them for the activation of the connectivity. It is also submitted that the Complainant could have contacted the customer care of the O.P. for resolving the issue. It is also submitted that the team of operation and maintenance could not address the complaint on 25.09.2021 for their otherwise busy schedule and attempted to visit the complainant's house on 26.09.2021. It is further submitted that the team who attempted to visit on 26.09.2021 was supposed to enter into the premises of the Complainant to inspect the devices but they were denied access by the Complainant and her son. Later on, the Complainant and her son were not reachable through telephonic contact or otherwise. It is also placed by them that since they have not granted access to the premises of the Complainant they could not take back the device installed therein as recovery of the device which is required for initiating the refund deposited by a party. It is also refuted by the O.P. asserting that no e-mail, as being claimed to have been received by the complainant, had been sent to the Complainant by the O.P. and according to them the Complainant should produce proof to substantiate such averment. It is also claimed by the O.P. that for successful activation of the device, the O.P. shall need to allow access to the device installed in the premises of the Complainant. Due to denial of access to the device, as explained by them, the complaint petition is having lack of merit and thus liable to be dismissed with cost.
 
4. The Complainant submitted her evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit whereby she reiterated the points, as submitted in her complaint petition. The documents submitted by her by way of firisthi dated 23.12.2021 and 05.09.2022 have been marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.
O.P. has submitted his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit largely explaining and expressing positions replicating the written statement submitted by him. The documents submitted by way of firisthi dated 05.09.2022 by the O.P. have been exhibited and marked as Exhibit- A.
 
5. Now it is to be decided as follows:
(i) Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service against the Complainant in delivering the service, in question?  
  (ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief as being sought for?
(iii) What is the extent of entitlement, if the answer of Sl.5 (ii) above is ‘yes’?
 
6. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and which are as under:
(i) It has been pleaded by the Complainant that despite the promises being made out by the O.P. to provide an internet connection to her premises in exchange of Rs.1500/-, so being deposited by her, the O.P. failed miserably to provide the internet connectivity to the Complainant. Mere installation of the device/apparatus at the house of the Complainant did not serve the very purpose of seeking such connection by the Complainant. Rather the extraordinary delay caused by the O.P. in delivering the effective/purposive service to the Complainant led to a burden on them in terms of  financial loss owing to causing denial to participate in video conference, hearings and webinars related to their profession. It is also stressed and pleaded that the O.P. could not provide an effective and usable internet connectivity to the Complainant till the date of filing of the case. The Complainant vehemently disproved the submission regarding denial of access to the maintenance and operating team of the O.P to took the devices back by objecting them to enter into her premises. On the contrary, it is pleaded by them that after 26.09.2021, the concerned representative of the O.P was rather not contactable/ reachable over phone which should not be the helpful and worthy approach and conduct of a professional service provider. On the point of denial by the O.P pertaining to their sending the e-mail dated 03.10.2021 to the Complainant, it is pleaded that the Jio Fibre Care had, in fact, sent the e-mail to the Complainant and; in support of her such assertion the Complainant submitted a screen-shot of such e-mail as substantive evidence.
(ii) The O.P. pleaded that merely after elapsing two days time since the day of installation of the device at the house of the Complainant, she expressed her desire to withdraw and cancel the request for providing the internet connectivity. As the entire internet connectivity service deliverance involves various technical aspects and any dislocation on the connectivity set up to the level of the premises of the customer can cause such technical snag and which is unavoidable in certain circumstances. Therefore, the service provider must give adequate time to mend such defects and establish the connectivity. It is also argued and placed by the O.P. that the competent service team of the O.P. was denied access to the device for the purpose of activation by the Complainant. For initiation of refund of the security deposit of Rs.1500/- to the Complainant, the recovery or lifting of the devices installed in the premises of the Complainant is necessary. Furthermore, the Complainant has to pursue the due process for withdrawal of the request and to seek the refund of the security deposit.
7. We have perused the documents relied upon by both the parties and taken into consideration the arguments brought forth by them. It is an admitted fact that the request for internet connectivity was made by the Complainant on 24.09.2021 and the necessary devices/ apparatus for the extend of such connectivity were installed at the premises of the Complainant on the same date. The activation of the connection enabling the same for use of the Complainant was to be done by the morning on 25.09.2021. But it is found that the activation could not be executed by the O.P. till 26.09.2021. It can also be confirmed from the documents submitted by the Complainant as evidence that the Complainant contacted the Jio Fibre Care Division of the O.P. and lodged a complaint thereat concerning the problems being faced by him due to non-activation of the internet connectivity. But to our utter disbelief it has been noted that the Complainant got a reply on 03.10.2021 by way of an e-mail from the Jio Fibre Care of the O.P. whereby it was stated that the team assigning the job to take care of the issue of non-activation had resolved the same whereas the execution of activation process on the part of the O.P. was still remained pending.
8. It has been submitted by the O.P. through their evidence that the terms and conditions of providing the service shall be submitted to this Commission by them. But the Commission observed that no such document envisaging the terms and conditions has been provided/ relied upon by the O.P. It has also been submitted by the O.P. that the intent to discontinue the service should be expressed by the customer through official procedures, as being provided under the terms and conditions, within a period of thirty days from the date of activation. Here in this case, this condition for discontinue of service does not apply as the activation for providing the internet browsing connection, in question, was remained pending.
9. Further, it was asserted by the O.P. that no e-mail was sent to the Complainant by them and, therefore, the claim of the Complainant regarding receiving the e-mail should be corroborated by providing appropriate proof from the side of the Complainant. Now, what we have observed that the Complainant here could well substantiate her stance and view-point by providing a proof in connection with sending of such e-mail by the O.P. to the Complainant by submitting a screen-shot of the e-mail to the Commission.
10. We found that the O.P. has caused inordinate and excessive delay in providing a workable/usable internet browsing connectivity at the premises of the Complainant. It is also found that without mending/ correcting the technical defects arising through the process, which were beyond the knowledge of the Complainant, the Jio Fibre Care Team of the O.P. unilaterally and irrationally declared about resolution of the complaint by sending an e-mail to the Complainant quoting as ''our team has resolved the issue'' which is tantamount to unfair trade practice.
11. It is a matter of common acceptance that any service delivery system which involves various technical aspects may encounter technical pitfalls/ obstacles in terms of synchronizing the systems/ equipments and such snags can come in the way to ensure the required service delivery and; elimination of such defects obviously needs a reasonable time. But, here O.P. took extraordinarily large amount of time while attempting to remove the defects and yet failed to ensure the activation of the internet browsing connection. The O.P. alleged that their repairing team had been obstructed to reach out to the device by denying access to the premises of the Complainant. But, O.P. had failed to provide any testimony whatsoever pertaining to such denial of access in the form of making any mode of communications like letter, e-mail, mobile messages or otherwise sent to the Complainant by them aftermath of such incidents. Therefore, such allegation does not hold any merit. We, therefore, has no hesitation to believe that such exorbitant delay in providing effective service delivery amounts to deficiency of service.
 
12. Now on appreciation of the matter in entirety, we hold the opinion that the Complainant has abled to prove the deficiency of service committed by the O.P. to our satisfaction. Therefore, we direct that the O.P. shall refund the deposited amount Rs.1500/-, along with interest @ 7% P.A. from the date of the deposit to the Complainant within a period of two months from the date of this judgment and failing which the rate of interest shall be enhanced to @ 10% P.A. till realization of the full amount. We further order that the O.P. shall pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant within two months from the date of this order and; failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization of the full amount. We also order that the Complainant shall return the full set of apparatus/devices, so installed at the premises of the Complainant, to the O.P. within three days from the date of receipt of the full amount, as ordered for. It is also defined by us for the sake of providing clarity towards execution of this judgment that if the O.P. i.e., the incumbent Jio Centre Manager is replaced/ substituted meanwhile, the person-in-position as Jio Centre Manager shall be liable to pay the ordered amount. 
13. All the points are, accordingly, decided. Hence, the case is disposed of. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.     
    
Announced.
 
SRI R. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.
 
 
DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL
MEMBER,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA
 
 
SRI SAMIR GUPTA,
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.