SRI SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, HON’BLE MEMBER

The appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 25/04/2018 passed by the ld DCDRC North 24 Parganas, Barasat, in CC no - 406/2016 wherein the concerned District Commission while disposing of the said complaint case allowed the same in part on contest against the ops without any cost and being aggrieved by such order, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant /complainant.

The brief fact of the case is that the complainant is a user of Airtel Data Card being no – 8585883690 since 2015 and said card was well maintained by the complainant by payment of regular bills. There was no outstanding dues against the said card. By profession the complainant is a chartered accountant. When the complainant was at Darjeeling for his professional affairs, he faced immense internet problem and as such he has failed to conduct his professional jobs for his clients. The report has been made by the complainant regarding slow and poor internet speed but the ops did not take any proper steps in order to provide better service to the complainant. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops Bharati Airtel Limited. Hence the case.

The opposite parties contested this by filing written version stating inter alia that the section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act provides for resolution of consumer disputes through arbitration and the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The ops also stated that the complainant was changing his place very frequently and as such the ops could not provide the proper service to the complainant. Moreover the complainant has claimed Rs 5,00,000/- and thereafter he has claimed Rs 10,00,000/- towards compensation. The complainant has failed to corroborate the said claim by production of relevant documents and papers. There is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the ops and as such the instant consumer case shall be dismissed with cost.

In course of hearing ld. counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to the observations of the ld DCDRC and pointed out that the Ld Dist. Commission concerned completely ignored and overlooked the materials and documents on record while passing the impugned order mentioned above. The ld. counsel also submitted that the ops Bharati Airtel Ltd have acted negligently with the complainant by not providing due services against the Data Card being no – 8585883690 which amounts to deficiency in service. The ld. counsel further stated that the complainant is a professional person and he has been seriously prejudiced due to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of ops. As, a chartered accountant, the complainant has failed to keep his commitment for delivery of reports / accounts etc within time and as such his goodwill has been destroyed.

The respondents/ops submitted that the section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act provides for resolution of consumer disputes through arbitration. The ld. counsel also argued that it is very quite natural that in hill area there is a chance of fluctuating of the internet connection which is out of control of the ops. The claim of compensation is totally arbitrary, frivolous, false and baseless as there is no supporting documents and evidence against the said false claim of the complainant.

The appeal was taken up for final hearing.

I have heard the ld. counsel for both parties and have also gone through materials on record. It is fact that the complainant is a consumer against the Airtel Data card being no-8585883690. The account summary and payment receipt (Anx-series ‘A’) clearly reveal that the complainant has been paying the bills raised by ops Bharati Airtel Ltd and as such there is no outstanding dues against the said Data Card. So, it is very natural that the complainant is entitled to get proper service from the ops.

Regarding arbitration clause, it can be said that the complainant either may approach before the arbitrator or may also approach before the Consumer Commission for his relief. When any consumer/complainant comes before the Consumer Commission for getting his relief, the Commission always tries to provide better protection to the interest of the consumer/complainant as per Preamble of the Consumer Protection Act.

Regarding compensation claimed by the complainant, there is no strong supporting evidence or documents so that the Commission can assess the actual financial loss in the professional field of the complainant, though it is fact that the complainant was harassed due to slow speed of the internet connection causing gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the ops/respondents.

Keeping in view of the above observations and for finality of the litigation I am allowing compensation of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only) instead of Rs. 3000/- (three thousand only) as well as litigation cost amounting to Rs. 5000/- (five thousand only).  

The ops/respondents are directed either jointly or severally to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/- also to the complainant/appellant within 45 days from the date of this order.

Hence the impugned order dated 25/04/2018 passed by the ld DCDRC North 24 Parganas commonly known as Barasat Consumer Commission, is thus modified.

In case of non-compliance of said order, the complainant/appellant shall have ample opportunity to take proper steps against the ops/respondents as per law.

The appeal stands allowed and thus disposed of.