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

========

Inderjit Singh, s/o Sh.Chamba Singh, r/o #2115, 1^st Floor,Sector 38-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.  Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd., DGP House, 88-C, Prabhadevi Road, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025, through its Managing Director/Chairman and other Directors.

2.  Tata Communications Internet Services Ltd., SCO No.212-214, 2^nd Floor, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh-160022, through its Director/Manager

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL   MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person with his Counsel Sh.J.S. Bhatti,                  Advocate.

Sh.Neelam Singh, Adv. for OPs.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

             Succinctly put, the complainant on 13.08.2008 paid a sum of Rs.3372/- to the OPs for installation of internet broadband connection at his residence and it was assured by the OPs that the broadband connection would be installed at his residence in three days but despite repeated requests by the complainant, it was never got installed by the OPs. After that the complainant got installed the internet broadband connection from another service provider on 29.08.2008 and requested OPs to refund the amount of Rs.3372/- which was paid by him on 13.08.2008 for installation of internet broadband connection at his residence and was never got installed by them but instead of returning the said amount, the OPs had sent to the complainant a bill dated 01.09.2008 towards the usage of internet broadband connection, which was never installed by them. The above facts  were reported by him to the OPs several times but was of no use at all. He then sent a legal notice to the OPs on 5.11.2008 which was never responded.  Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             Notice was served to the OPs. In their written reply the Learned Counsel for the OPs admitted the factual matrix of the case and submitted that the internet connection was installed on 21.08.2008 and the ID was created and was allotted to the complainant, however the complainant had refused to sign the installation confirmation report.  The connection was hired on monthly basis and the computerized bill was automatically generated and accordingly the same was communicated to the complainant on his ID. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, the Learned Counsel for the OPs pleaded that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             The submissions made by the OPs in their reply were controverted by the complainant after filing rejoinder on the reply of the OPs.

4.             The Parties led evidence in support their contentions.

5.             We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             There is no dispute about it that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3,372/- on 13.08.2008 for installation of broadband connection.  The complainant has attached the receipt in this respect with the replication/rejoinder which is marked as Annexure P-5.  When the connection was not installed till 17.08.2008, the complainant contacted the officials of the OP but to no effect.  He then sent email on 23.08.2008 now marked as Annexure P-6 but even thereafter the connection was not installed. A reply was however received from the OP on 27.08.2008 mentioning therein that his request has been addressed.  There is no mention in the email if the connection has been granted to him, if so on which date. Ultimately on 29.08.2008, the complainant got the broadband connection installed from some other service provider and informed the OP in this respect vide email dated 30.08.2008 now marked Annexure P-7 requesting the OP to refund the amount. The contention of the OP is that the connection was installed on 21.08.2008. However they did not give any detail as to through which official it was installed and why the complainant was not informed about it.  The contention of the OP is that the complainant refused to sign the installation confirmation report but no such report has been placed on file, the affidavit of the person who installed the connection and in whose presence the complainant refused to sign has also not been produced.  When the OPs sent email dated 27.08.2008 now marked Annexure P-8 alleging that his request has been addressed, no such fact was mentioned in the said email if the connection was installed on 21.08.2008 or if the installation confirmation report was not signed by him.  This ground therefore has been coined by the OPs now in order to defend their inaction.

7.             The complainant has alleged having obtained the broadband connection on 29.08.2008 from some other service provider.  He had already deposited Rs.3,372/- with the OP.  If the broadband connection had been granted to him on 21.08.2008 as alleged by OP there was no possibility of the complainant paying the amount again to some other service provider to get the another connection.  Moreover he would not have been waiting upto 29.08.2008 and would have utilized the said connection granted by the OP but he did not.  It shows that no such connection was granted to the complainant on 21.08.2008 as is alleged by the OP and therefore the complainant had to incur extra expenditure to get the connection from some other service provider.

8.      It is therefore a clear case where deficiency in service is proved on the part of the OPs for which they would be liable to pay compensation besides the refund of the amount of Rs.3,372/- received by them.

9.             Before parting with the judgment, it would be necessary to mention the conduct of the complainant also.  A notice Annexure P-1 was issued to the OP on 25.09.2008 detailing the deficiency in service on their part.  In the concluding para of this notice the complainant claimed damages amounting to Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.3,300/- as expenses incurred by him on sending the notice.  Thereafter the lawyer was changed and alongwith the changed lawyer the entire relief clause was changed.  Subsequent notice Annexure P-4 was issued by Jagmohan Singh Bhatti, Advocate who is now the Counsel for the complainant.  In this notice the amount of compensation was raised from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/- and the rate of interest on the amount of Rs.3,372 was increased from 18% to 24%. It is not understood as to what other event took place in between to claim the hefty amount of Rs.15,00,000/- except the change of the lawyer.  It shows that the notice Annexure P-4 was issued without application of mind and in a reckless manner just to browbeat the OPs which is not only unfair but unwarranted.  Such like actions need to be condemned where the notices are served with intemperate language which lack decency.

10.           In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OPs are directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.3,372/- and to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment alongwith Rs.500/- as costs of litigation.  The entire amount shall be paid with in 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 01.10.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.