| Final Order / Judgement | CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077 CASE NO.CC/431/15 Date of Institution:- 20.08.2015 Order Reserved on:- 15.01.2024 Date of Decision:- 02.07.2024 IN THE MATTER OF: Ashok Kumar Goel 1stFloor, 110-A/4, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi - 110029 .….. Complainant VERSUS BhartiAirtel Limited (Through the chairman) Aravli Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road, VasantKunj, Phase-2, New Delhi - 110070 .…..Opposite Party Suresh Kumar Gupta, President - The complainant has initially filed the complaint against Sh. Sunil Bharti Mittal, Service Provider. The OP was served. An application under order 1 Rule 10 filed by the OP to implead BhartiAirtel Ltd. as OP instead of Sh. Sunil Bharti Mittal. The application was allowed as apparent from order sheet dated 24.02.2016.
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that OP has given telephone connection no.011-40503630 with internet and IP TV connection at his residence. IP TV, internet and telephone connection have not been working satisfactorily for more than a year. No service has been provided since 09.07.2015 upon which service request no.57459440 dated 09.07.2015 was registered which was not rectified due to non-availability of set top box. The box was replaced in about 10 days without any improvement in the service as a result modem was also replaced. There was no improvement in the service so modem was again replaced but without any improvement in service. The complaints no.57762646 dated 19.07.2015, 58113812 dated 30.07.2015 and 58195192 dated 02.08.2015 were closed without resolving the issues. A false SMS dated 02.08.2015 from AD-ARWFSV at 12.12.02 was sent by service provider that complaint no.58113812 for fixed line/broadband has been resolved. The problem was not resolved. In fact, only erratic service was functional till 02.08.2015. The telephone connection was disconnected. The complaints after 02.08.2015 were not responded. The complaint no.57459440 was followed by number of complaints but service to IP TV internet and telephone is not in operation. They were unable to do numerous activities like trading etc. for which they should be properly compensation. OP should print complete name and address on the bills as he has changed the registered alternative mobile no. 9873169331 and email id long back but wrong details are printed on this bills. The OP either does not sent the bill or sent after due date of payment. The toll-free interactive complaint number does not automatically record the complaint. The executive of the OP does not disclose his/her name. OP has assured that service will be upgraded to high definition with optical fibre cable at the time of his installation but nothing has been done. There is deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint.
- The OP has filed the reply with the preliminary objectionthat the complaint is not maintainable in view of Section 3 (1AA) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The complainant raised the disputed question of facts which cannot be determined by this Commission. There is no cause of action in favour of the complainant. It is wrong that no service has been provided since 09.07.2015. IP TV, internet and telephone connection are working satisfactorily as on date. The set top box and modem were replaced by way of abundant precaution and no fault could be found in IP TV, internet and telephone connection. On 20.08.2015, OP has unilaterally given a waiver of Rs.1140/- as a goodwill gesture to the complainant.The details printed in the bill are in accordance with the details given by the complainant. The allegations of the complainant are false and frivolous.
- The complainant has filed the rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the stand taken in the complaint and denied the averments made in the written statement and further added that service request dated 09.07.2015, 19.07.2015, 30.07.2015, 02.08.2015, 08.08.2015, 14.08.2015, 20.08.2015, 23.08.2015, 26.08.2015, 19.09.2015, 29.09.2015, 03.10.2015, 13.11.2015, 05.01.2016 and 21.12.2016 were given and even OP has itself admitted that at least 14 non-working days since 09.07.2015 in the email dated 20.08.2015. The bill dated 12.09.2015 of Rs.2,677/- as available on website did not indicate adjustment of Rs.1,140/-. The bill was paid by net banking on 30.09.2015.
- The OP has filed Sur Rejoinder in terms of order dated 28.08.2018 whereby OP has controverted the claim of the complainant by alleging that speed was less than 400kbps. OP has on multiple occasions replaced set top box and modem by way of abundant caution without observing without fault in IP TV, internet and telephone connection. No service provider can guarantee a specific speed as speed depends upon the factors between the user and situation of telephone exchange, usage of cable, etc. It is not technically feasible to provide continuous maximum speed guaranteed by OP. The minimum download speed as per broadband policy 2004 was 256kbps which was increased to 512kbps in terms of broadband service (second amendment) Regulations 2014.A failure of service was never admitted in email dated 20.08.2015 by MuskanAgarwal. The allegations are false.
- The partieswere directed to lead the evidence.
- The Complainant has filed his own evidence and corroborated the version of complaint and placed reliance on the documents annexed with the complaint.
- The OP has filed the affidavit of Sh. Amit Bhatia, in evidence wherein he has corroborated the version of written statement and Sur Rejoinder and placed reliance on the documents i.e. Power of attorney dated 07.11.2016 Ex.OPW1/1, application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC Ex.OPW1/2, screenshot taken from customer data base reflecting waiver given to the complainant Ex.OPW1/3.
- We have heard the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and perused the entire material on record.
- The complainant is a consumer and present complaint is maintainable and this issue has been decided in WPC No.8285/2010 titled as J. K. Mittal Vs Union of India &Ors. decided on 06.02.2012 by Hon’bleMr. Justice VipinSanghi, Judge of Hon’bleHigh Court of Delhi.
- It is clear from the material on record that OP has provided IPTV, internet and telephone connection bearing no.40503630 to the complainant in the year 2011. The initial speed was 2mbps and plan was upgraded to 4mbps. The OP has not controverted this fact meaning thereby that this fact stands admitted.
- The sur-rejoinder filed by the OP shows that minimum download speed was 256kbps as per broadband policy 2004 which was increased to 512kbps as per TRAI notification dated 25.06.2014. The OP was supposed to provide the speed of 4mbps to the complainant as per plan upgraded by the OP.
- The complainant has alleged that speed was not more than 10% of the declared speed whereas OP has alleged in the sub-rejoinder that minimum download speed up to 24mbps was provided to complainant. The complainant has alleged that he has regularly given complaints from 09.07.2015 to the OP regarding the slow speed. The OP has admitted that complaint no.57459440 dated 09.07.2015 was received upon which set top box with HDMI output was replaced. The replacement of the set top box with HDMI output means that the speed was not as per the plan given to the complainant.
- The OP has led the evidence to the effect that waiver of Rs.1140/- was given to the complainant in the billing of September, 2015 though this fact is denied by the complainant that waiver was given in the bill of the month of September, 2015. The OP has failed to explain why the sum of Rs.1140/- was waived off. The waiving of the amount is a pointer to the fact that speed was not as per plan and therefore amount was waived off which impliedly shows that there is ring of truth in the complaint of the complainant about the slow speed.
- The OP has failed to show that speed was low due to the factors beyond the control of OP.
- The complainant has given complaints regarding low speed to the OP. The complainant has reflected service request no. along with date in the rejoinder though OP has denied about the receipt of complaints from the complainant. The complainant has not given specific request number in the evidence by way of an affidavit but it shows that numerous complaints were given to the OP. The complainant has even written a letter on 17.10.2015 to Sh. Sunil Bharti, CMD of the Airtel by narrating all these facts but in vain. The repeated complaint from the complainant points out that speed was not as per plan otherwise there was no question of giving complaints to the OP.
- The above said discussion shows that OP has not provided the speed as per the plan given to the complainant. There is nothing on the record from the side of the OP that speed was as per plan or that the speed was slow due to the factors beyond its control. The replacement of set top box with HDMI output signifies that there was problem with the speed which needs replacement of set top box with HDMI output. The waiver off Rs.1140/- further shows that waiver was given due to the issue of speed otherwise question of waiver does not arise. The complaints from the OP including complaint CMD of OP signifies that complainant was not satisfied with the speed. The OP has not come with explanation to controvert the allegations of the complainant. This shows that there was deficiency of service on the part of OP.
- In view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed to the effect that OP shall pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/-on account of mental harassment and agonyto the complainant.The OP is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the receipt of the order failing which complainant will be entitled for interest @6% p.a. on the amount of mental harassment and agony i.e. from the date of order till its realization.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 02.07.2024.
| |
