Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/242/2014

A.Salam Sulaiman - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.I.Mohamed Faizal

31 May 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   04.06.2014

                                                                        Date of Order :   31.05.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 242/2014

WEDNESDAY THIS  31^ST  DAY OF MAY 2017

Mr. A. Salam Sulaiman,

New No.AE-11, Old No.A E-174,

11^th Main Road,

Anna Nagar,

Chennai  - 40.                                              .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Authorized Signatory,

Tata Communications Ltd.,

No.7^th Floor, Gee Gee Complex,

Mc. Nicholas Road,

Chetput, Chennai – 31.

 

2. The Authorized Signatory,

Tata Communications Ltd.,

Prince Info City II,

283/284, 13^th Floor,

Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kannanchavadi, Chennai – 96.                   .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant          :    M/s. I. Mohamed Faisal & another

Counsel for opposite parties     :    M/s. Shivakumar & Suresh   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, stress, pain, hardship, sufferance and heavy loss undergone by the complainant.  

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  he had purchased and obtained “internet service” connection from the opposite parties for his personal usage.    Further the complainant also submit that during the month of September 2010 & thereafter the above internet service started giving many problems.   There has been frequent connectivity failure and there is a mal functioning of internet.    Despite of several complaints  made by the complainant there was neither any reply nor any response by the opposite parties.   Accordingly the complainant had issued  legal notice to the opposite parties on 20.2.2014, but no reply was received from opposite parties till date.     As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service which caused  mental agony, stress, hardship  and heavy loss to the complainant.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite parties    are as follows:

          All the averments and allegations made in the complaint are denied as false except to the extent admitted herein.   The complainant has suppressed material facts before this forum and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.   The opposite parties submit that the compliant is false, frivolous, vexatious, and unsustainable both in law and facts.    The opposite parties also submit that  it is true that the complainant had purchased and obtained “internet service connection from VSNL.  It is also true that the said VSNL was taken over by Tata Communications Ltd., i.e. opposite parties herein.    But it is false to state that during the month of September 2010 the internet service started giving many problems and he had lost his customers and there is a huge loss and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  

3.             Further the opposite parties state that the complainant had utilized the above bonus hours facilities issued by the opposite parties and filed the above complaint with false and untenable allegations.   The opposite parties also submit that it is false to state that inspite of all the complaints made by the complainant there was neither any reply nor any response by the opposite parties.     As per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the alleged deficiency in service, the complainant must prove the following

       i) The damage should have been occurred in view of such deficiency

      ii) The damages occurred and compensation should have close nexus between each other and the same should have direct co-relation with the alleged deficiency in service.

The opposite parties further submits that that above aspects have to be proved with all such material evidence as may be deemed necessary to sustain a claim for compensation under the C. P. Act 1986 by the complainant.   Therefore the opposite party is absolved of any liability to pay any damages and therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation in this regard and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

5.   The point for the consideration is:  

 

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the alleged deficiency of service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties as prayed for ?
2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for?

 

6. POINTS 1 & 2:-

 

         Heard both sides.  Perused the records.   Admittedly the complainant availed Internet Service connection from VSNL and later it was taken over by Tata Communications Limited.   The complainant pleaded in the complaint and in the written arguments that during the month of September 2010 and thereafter till 12.12.2014 he had many problems in internet service connection.   But the complainant has not produced any document to prove such internet connectivity failure till 15.12.2011.   Thereafter the alleged connectivity failure and complaints related to that as per Ex.A3 has not been proved in such a manner, is seen from the payment of bill.   It is also seen from the records that the complainant himself admitted that he has used the above said internet connection for his commercial transactions.   The Consumer Protection Act 1986 is barred for such commercial use. 

7.     Further it is pleaded in the complaint and stated in the written arguments that the complaint dated 12.2.2014 has not been properly attended and the grievance has not been redressed is also not acceptable as per Ex.B1.   The complainant’s allegation of internet connectivity failure whether caused in the instrument or usage also has not been explained and proved.  The complainant has not taken any steps to send the instrument for expert opinion also.   Further the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, stress, pain, hardship, sufferance and heavy loss undergone by the complainant in his commercial purpose is not acceptable, since the opposite parties attended all the complaints then and there.   The complainant also availed the service of the opposite parties used the internet and paid the charges.   

8.     As per the decision reported in

2015 (4) CPR 390 NC

Vikash Singh

..Vs..

B.M.W. India Pvt. Ltd.,

 

Held that

“Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Section 11(1), 17 (1) (a) & 21(a) – Pecuniary Jurisdiction – Repair of Vehicle Rs.7,78,900/- - compensation Rs.1,70,00,000/- - Held – Complaint does not fall within pecuniary jurisdiction  of National Commission. “

 

         “Complainant senior advocate practicing in the Supreme Court has claimed highly disproportionate and unrealistic compensation of Rs.1,70,00,000/- respect to the value of deficient service Rs.7,78,900.  This amounts to abuse of process of  law. “

The claim of such imaginary figure for the allegation of internet failure amounts to abuse of process of law.

9.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant used the internet connection right from the beginning of installment by VSNL in the year 2002 till date.   After taking over of the business of VSNL by TATA Communications, the complainant availed all the bonus hours facility issued by the opposite parties in such a  manner and utilized the internet connection for commercial purpose and filed this vexatious complaint is admittedly proved.  From the pleadings of the complainant it is clear that he has used the internet for commercial purpose and all the complaints made has been attended then and there and used the bonus hours of internet usage offer as per Ex.B1.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that as per Section 28 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 such frivolous and vexatious complaint shall be dismissed with cost.     Further the  opposite parties   contended that there is no deficiency of service  in this case, since internet connection availed  by the complainant utilized till date is also proved from the document of usage of internet and payment of bills.   Equally there is no unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.   None of the instrument is a defaulted at any point of time.  The complainant also has not taken any steps to seek expert opinion in relation with the instrument.   The claim of Rs.10,00,000/- is imaginary and it amounts to abuse of process of law.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,  this forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.  No cost.    Thus the points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  31^st day  of  May 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 10.12.2012         - Copy of complainant’s complaint to the 1^st opposite party

                               with receipt.

Ex.A2- 17.12.2012         - Copy of Bill payment receipt.

Ex.A3- 1712.2012 - Copy of Complainant’s complaint to the 1^st opposite party

                               with Ack. Card.

Ex.A4- 13.2.2014  - Copy of mail sent by customer service of opposite party.

Ex.A5- 20.2.2014  - Copy of complainant’s lawyer’s notice with receipt.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of details of Bonus hours issued by the opposite party.  

 

 

MEMBER-I                 ­       MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.