2)        According to the Complainant, he was a consumer of the Opposite Party for last 20 years for the internet service.  His User ID was marathek@bom3.vsnl.net.in.  It is alleged that he was renewing his pre-paid account regularly every six months.  He lastly renewed in April, 2010 by paying Rs.3,500/-.  It is submitted that from April, 2010 itself, the Complainant started experiencing difficulties in using the internet service of the Opposite Party as their system became slow.  It is submitted that it was unable to remember the Complainant’s User ID and Password, because of frequent disconnection as a result he could not browse the internet, download his e-mails and send his e-mails.  It is alleged that he forwarded number of complaint (14) on the online of the Opposite Party’s ‘Complaints Registered System’. In the letter dtd.28/12/2010 addressed to the Opposite Party, the Complainant had given the details of the complaints which he had registered (copy of the said letter is at pg. 5 & 6 of this complaint).

 3)        It is submitted that the failure of the service on the Opposite Party frustrated the Complainant and gave mental torture for almost 2 months as he could not browse the internet, nor received or send e-mails. It is submitted that this compelled the Complainant to switch over to another service provider from 1^st week of August, 2010 and only after switch over he could send e-mails.  The Complainant therefore, send e-mail dtd.13/10/2010 to the Opposite Party to refund his balance of Rs.783/- based on the account details of the website of the Opposite Party. According to the Complainant, the same was subsequently found not to be correct.  It is further alleged that in the reply e-mail dtd.14/10/2010 the Opposite Party informed that the money cannot be refunded.  Thereafter, the Complainant send e-mail dtd.09/11/2010 to the Nodal Office and copy to the Appellate Authority of the Opposite Party and reminded again on 19/11/2010 to refund the balance in his account but there was no reply from them.  All the copies of e-mail are at pg.7 to 13 to the complaint.  The Complainant also wrote letter dtd.28/12/2010 and informed the Opposite Party that pre-paid means money which is paid in advance with a commitment on the part of the service provider that continuous and uninterrupted service would be provided to him.  It is submitted that the Opposite Party failed to meet contractual obligation on its part. The Complainant therefore, vide letter dtd.28/12/2010 asked the Opposite Party to refund his money prorate i.e. Rs.2,400/- and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the inconvenience caused to be and mental torture and frustration from April, 2010.  It is submitted that since there is no response from the Opposite Party so the Complainant approached the Consumer Guidance Society of India, Mumbai office who wrote two letter dtd.08/02/2011 and 15/06/2011 to the Opposite Party to give response to the grievance of the Complainant. The Opposite Party however, did not give any response, the Complainant therefore, approached this Forum for the reliefs as claimed in para 1 of this order. 

 4)        The Opposite Party remained absent though served with the notice, hence, the complaint proceeded against the Opposite Party ex-parte.  The Complainant has filed affidavit of evidence and written argument. We heard Ld.Advocate for the Complainant Ms. Rashmi Manne.

 5)        On going through the facts pleaded in the complaint and the communication made by the Complainant on e-mail to the Opposite Party it appears that the Complainant till 13^th October, 2010 did not request the Opposite Party to close the internet service which he had obtained on the basis of prepaid charges of Rs.3,500/- from April, 2010.  According to the Complainant, he made complaints on e-mail about dissatisfaction of the internet service of the Opposite Party as per the communication at page 7 & 8 to the complaint.  The communication dtd.17/04/2010 is regarding not saving the Complainant’s User Name and Password.  The next communication dtd.17/07/2010 is as follows –

             “I am experiencing last 2-3 days that I am getting disconnected very frequently whenever I am using your broad band.  Further even I am connected I am not able to get connected to the website which I want to.  Please look into the matter and rectify urgently.”  

             The next e-mail is dtd.20/07/2010 which is as under –

             “There is no change in the situation. By the way what is the speed of your internet ?  find that it has slowed down is a time now for me to change over to other efficient broad band server ?” 

             Thereafter the next e-mail is dtd.13/10/2010 wherein the Complainant has requested to refund the balance in his account of Rs.783.20 paise.  In the said e-mail it is mentioned that validity of his internet account was upto 01/10/2010 but he could not used for last one and half month because the service of Opposite Party was bad and there was a credit balance of Rs.783.20 paise.  The Complainant prayed to refund the said amount to him by the Opposite Party.  The Complainant in the written argument  as well as in his affidavit of evidence has quoted that he has lodged 14 complaints to the Opposite Party but the copies of those complaints are not placed on record with the complaint.  Except the above referred complaints no other complaints appears to have been made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.  It also appears that the request for refund of Rs.783.20 paise was made by the Complainant after his internet account was suspended on 01/10/2010 by the Opposite Party as per the period provided for using the internet facility which he had renewed in April, 2010.  The Opposite Party by e-mail at page 9 filed with the complaint responded to the Complainant’s e-mail dtd.13/10/2010 sent at 10.39 a.m. immediately on the same date at 2.11 p.m. and informed the Complainant that his account has been suspended on 01/10/2010 due to non renewal and the Opposite Party would like to inform the Complainant that there is no deactivation procedure for the pre-paid account.  The Complainant may use the account till it expires and further do not renew his account.  It is also specifically informed that the balance amount cannot be refunded to the Complainant and there is no security deposit.  Considering these facts we find that prior to 01/10/2010 the Complainant never informed the Opposite Party that he has disconnected or closed his internet account obtained from the Opposite Party which was upto 01/10/2010. From the aforesaid complaint of the Complainant it appears that he had not made the grievances to the Opposite Party as mentioned in the complaint such as, he could not browse the internet, download his e-mail or sent his e-mails.  Only in the e-mail dtd.17/07/2010 the Complainant has informed to the Opposite Party that for last 2-3 days his getting disconnected very frequently whenever he is using the broad band of the Opposite Party and he is not able to connect to the website which he wants to.  The Complainant requested to look into the matter and rectify urgently.  Considering the e-mail correspondence relied by the Complainant we hold that as the Complainant did not ask the Opposite Party to close his internet account prior to 01/10/2010 and the e-mails which he had forwarded to the Opposite Party he had also not informed that they would be liable to refund the amount for not providing better services by the Opposite Party which would remain in balance as on 01/10/2010 is not entitle for refund amount from Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party therefore, in our view has rightly informed to the Complainant that he is not entitle for any refund as his account is suspended on 01/10/2010 due to non renewal.  We also hold that from the e-mails referred above and many times the problems of connectivity of internet services arise in many internet systems therefore, it cannot be held that there was continued internet service problem faced by the Complainant from April, 2010    to 01/10/2010 which can be considered as deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.  We therefore, hold that the submissions made by Ld.Advocate for the Complainant for grant of claim made in the complaint are devoid of merits.  In the result the following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.224/2011 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.                 Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.