Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/77/2021

Murali Janakiraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Appellate Officer, The Act Fiber Net, Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

17 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                               Date of Complaint Filed : 21.09.2020

                                                               Date of Reservation      : 07.03.2023

                                                              Date of Order               : 17.03.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                 :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.77/2021

FRIDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF MARCH 2023

Murali Janakiraman,

95/1, MIG Flat G/Floor,

11^th Avenue, Ashok Nagar,

Chennai-600 083.                                                                                                                   ...  Complainant                

..Vs..

The Appellate Officer,

The Act Fibernet,

Atria Convergence Technologies Ltd,

Regional Office,

Golden Heights, 59^th “C” Cross, 4^th M Block,

Rajajinagar,

Bangalore-560010.                                                                                                                           ...  Opposite Party

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. P.Suresh Babu

Counsel for the Opposite Party       : M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh

 

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by  Member-II, Thiru. S.Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA., 

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to compensate a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the mental and physical difficulties in addition to refund the whole of the paid advance sum of Rs.7222/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant thought of going to a Private Service Provider to avail a better service by surrendering the BSNL  a very basic service in existence, has totally defeated. In fact, the new service provider ACT Fiber Net has promised to fulfill his need and his Application has been processed for ACT BLAZE plan with 100 Mbps speed for a period of 6 months and paid in advance a sum of Rs.7,222/- through Credit Card on 15.06.2020 after enclosing all the requisite documents such as Ration Card Proof, Aadhaar Card Proof, Driving License Copy, and Self- Passport Size Photo as insisted by the Technical Representative of ACT, Mr. Jitin, in person. The service of the ACT connectivity was established only on 17.6.2020 and on the same day onwards his connectivity had a lot of problems. He had started calling their customer care and escalated his grievance to their higher officials, Nodal Officers, Appellate Officer through mail. Even he had been to their nearest office in T.Nagar, Chennai in person they have not entertained a valuable customer by not allowing to see anyone there. All their very bad and negligent attitude left the Complainant with no other alternative to choose another service provider and to disconnect ACT. Whenever he called the Technical in-charge who gave the connectivity/service, their support was not satisfied. Whenever he wrote his difficulties to their higher officials as per their procedure to escalate the matter-No solution arrived-Only Automated NO REPLY Mails. At least when went in person to lodge a complaint, by taking their address from the website he was neither allowed by the Watchman on duty nor gave any contact number. His valiant attempt of 1 out of 50 calls attended by the Customer Care Number given in the website 7285999999 & 9121212121 has not at all solved his problem. After undergoing these above difficulties, he was advised by his brother to seek the help of NCH and by whose advices, he claimed from the Service Provider ACT to compensate his loss and mental agony underwent for 2 and half months. Thus, regretfully ACT was not only involved in breach of established terms by not rendering services as mentioned in their website, but also caused mental agony, physical stress, and financial expenditures. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

       The Opposite Party submitted that it is true that the Complainant had initially paid Rs.7,222/- at the time of activation and opted CHNACT Blaze 6M+1M+WIFI and internet account was activated on 18/06/2020 and according to the plan opted by Complainant the eligible speed limit is 125 Mbps. At the time of availing the services, the Opposite Party had collected the documents as per procedure for obtaining the new internet connection. It is submitted that all the complaints raised by the Complainant were duly attended and closed. It is further submitted that due to covid-19 Pandemic all the Opposite Party's employee were working from home and all offices of the Opposite Party's were closed. Hence when the Complainant visited their office he was not able to reach the employees of the Opposite Party in person and the Complainant cannot find fault with the Opposite Party for the same. The statement made that his complaints were not attended is false and incorrect. All the complaints raised by the Complainant were properly addressed by the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has provided the services as per his plan, but the Complainant had network speed issue and had a habit of raising complaints frequently. Before even addressing the previous complaint, a new complaint would be raised by him. It is submitted that after receiving the request for disconnection from the customer, the Opposite Party has immediately intimated the Complainant that they are ready to refund the balance amount after deduction of usage charges as per their records. After verification, the Opposite Party has also communicated to the Complainant that as per their records there has been continuous usage towards ACT account across all months and due to which they are unable to provide a full refund. The Opposite Party was trying to resolve the issue by refunding the amount after deducting the services availed by him, but the Complainant did not agree for the same. The router provided by the Opposite Party is still with the Complainant and has not been returned. Based on the request made by the Complainant, the Opposite Party has disconnected the service with effect from 09.06.2020. After deducting the router cost and usage charge, the Opposite Party is willing to refund a sum of Rs.1,786/- to the Complainant. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant

Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

4.The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6 . The Opposite Party submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Opposite Party document was marked as Ex.B-1.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

          The undisputed facts are that the Complainant had opted for CHNACT blaze 6M+1M+ WIFI for a period of 6+1 months and on payment of Rs.7222/- the internet account was activated on 18.06.2020 with a speed limit of 125 Mbps. The dispute arose when the Complainant had connectivity problem and the data speed provided by the Opposite Party was not as per the Data Plan.

           The Contention of the Complainant is that he had switched over to ACT connection from BSNL mainly for his family on payment of Rs.7222/- as the Opposite Party had promised for ACT Blaze plan with speed of 125 Mbps, by submitting requisite documents. Further submitted that his connection was activated on 18.06.2020, but had connectivity problem from the same day. When the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party regarding the connectivity issue there was no proper response from the Opposite Party.      

         The Opposite Party contented that on payment of initial amount of Rs.7222/- they had activated CHNACT Blaze 6M+1M+WIFI plan on 18.06.2020 with a speed limit of 125 Mbps for 6+1 months and provided the wireless router device to the Complainant. Further submitted that due to Covid 19 pandemic the employees of the Opposite Party were working from home and that the Complainant was not able to reach the employees of the Opposite Party in person, for which the Complainant cannot find fault with the Opposite Party. After receiving the request of disconnection from the Complainant the Opposite Party had communicated to the Complainant to refund after deducting usage charges and sought for return of router from the Complainant.

      Upon perusal of Ex.A1 it is evident that the Complainant  had applied for ACT BLAZE plan on 15.06.2020 with wireless router device by submitting documents such as Ration Card, Aadhar Card, Driving license and his passport size photo. The Opposite Party had admitted advance payment of Rs.7222/- from the Complainant . Admittedly the connection was activated on 18.06.2020. It is seen from Ex.A-2 that the Complainant had contacted the Opposite Party regarding the internet issue and sought to rectify the issue. Ex.A-3 is the series of Data speed, status, captured by the Complainant, which was not according to the plan provided to the Complainant. The various exchange of Email communications between the Complainant and the Opposite Party as found in Ex.A-5 would reveal that on 05.09.2020, expressing the hardship suffered by himself and his family due to consistent internet issue faced by him sought for refund of amount paid by him to the Opposite Party and for compensation. On 06.09.2020, the Opposite Party had disconnected ACT Fibrenet services. In response to the refund sought by the Complainant, the Opposite Party had issued an email on 14.09.2022 stating as follows:

 "we would like to inform you that your ACT account has been disconnected from 6th September, 2020 and you had taken service under CHNACT Blaze 6 M + 1 M+ WIFI plan. Currently, you had Rs. 3785/- as credit amount towards your account if the router has been returned full amount will be processed refund. If the router is not returned, we will deduct Rs. 1999/- for the router and remaining Rs. 1786/- will be processed refund. Kindly confirm for the router return to proceed further".

From Ex.B1 it is seen that the Complainant had used the services of the Opposite Party from 18.06.2020 to 06.09.2020 for which an invoice amount of Rs.4521.94 was generated as per Ex.A2, page No.10. Further Clause 2 of the Terms and conditions of use, which is at page No.3 of Ex.A1 provides that the Customer Premises Network Equipment installed at the premises of the subscriber as the exclusive property of the Opposite Party, and in case of discontinuation of service due to any reason , the subscriber had to return the equipment.

            From the foregoing discussions and based on the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the considered view that the Complainant had been utilizing the services of the Opposite Party from 18.06.2020 to 06.09.2020 though with some connectivity issue and the speed limit with which the internet was provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant was not as per the agreed plan which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in favour of the Complainant.

Point Nos. 2:-

      Admittedly the Opposite Party had agreed to return a sum of Rs.3785/- on return of router to the Opposite Party by the Complainant else to deduct a sum of Rs.1999/- for the router and to pay Rs.1786/- . Hence the Opposite Party is liable to pay the admitted amount along with compensation . Accordingly Point No. 2 is answered.

 Point No.3:-

As point No.1 & 2 are decided in favour of the Complainant he is not entitled for any other reliefs. Accordingly point No.3 is answered.

 

  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is   directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,785/- (Rupees Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Five Only) on surrender of Router by the Complainant, if the Router is not surrendered by the Complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,786/- (Rupees One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty Six Only) and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation for the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 17^th of March 2023.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Application for ACT connectivity
Ex.A2	-	Conversation with the Tech Team through Whatsapp
Ex.A3	-	Various dates speed tests
Ex.A4	-	Customer call Log sheet/Tech Team call log sheet
Ex.A5	-	Mail conversation had with ACT various dates
Ex.A6	-	National consumer helpline track sheet

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1

-

Usage details of Fibernet

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT