JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

                Complainant Parameswar Pradhan has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for not attending to his grievance regarding failure of network in his house and praying therein for direction to the Opposite Parties to provide mobile network connectivity to his house, pay cost and compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively.

1.                 Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a subscriber of BharatiAirtel Ltd. which is operating in the name and style of Airtel. The complainant has availed a SIM card having Mobile No. 7684060842 since last 9 years. As there was failure of network and mobile connectivity, he lodged complain and the OP No. 2 intimated the complainant that they are in process of evaluation and they need cooperation, if required. Even though the OP No. 2 replied to his complain, nothing was done and the complainant lodged complaint in toll free number and through e-mails. But, nothing was done. As the Opposite Parties did not redress his grievance, he filed this petition before this Commission as discussed in preceding paragraphs.

2.                 Notice was duly served on the parties. They appeared and filed their written statements jointly. In their written statement, it is stated that the complainant is not a consumer and this Commission has no jurisdiction to sit over the matter. It is further stated that at the time of taking connection, the customer acknowledged the terms and conditions as stipulated in the CAF which intimates the customers that all services are subject to the network availability. Airtel makes no representation, guarantee or warranty regarding the availability, fitness, quality or reliability of the network whatsoever. The complainant is a customer since 2014 and after prolonged use; he has made this complaint with ulterior motives. After receipt of complain, the engineers of the company were deputed to ascertain the cause of non-availability of signal. But, the complainant did not cooperate for which he is not entitled to get any relief and therefore, pray for dismissal of the case with cost.

3.                 It is an admitted fact that the complainant is availing the mobile telephonic service from the Opposite Parties on payment of the prescribed tariff. Since the complainant is availing the service of the Opposite Parties on payment of cost, he enjoys the status of a consumer. As the petitioner is a consumer, this Commission has got ample of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. Therefore, the objection raised by OPs on this score is rejected.

4.                 It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant is a customer since 2014. It is also admitted by both the parties that there was no complain till 2022. When he faced the network problem which was available to him in his residence, he lodged the complaint before the competent authorities for redressal of his grievance. Even though the OP No. 2 admitted that they are trying to evaluate the complaint and they are in touch with some of their clients for improvement of network. Even though the reply came to the notice in the month of August-2021, nothing was done over a pretty long period of one year. It is on 02.08.2022, the complainant filed this case waiting a long period of one year. The Opposite Parties in their written statements are completely silent as to what steps they have taken to redress the grievance of the complainant.

5.                 The Opposite Parties in their written statement have stated that all services are subject to network availability and it has been mentioned in the Customers’ Application Form (CAF). The Opposite Parties are well aware of the fact that in which area their network is functioning and to what extent it can function. In the CAF, the detail address and name of a customer is provided and KYC is also provided in which the detail address is there. Before issuing a SIM to a prospective customer, the name and address of the customer is clearly written and it is the duty of a Telecom Company to verify and ensure whether they can provide network to the applicant in the given address. Simply by mentioning that all services are subject to network availability in the CAF is not sufficient to draw the attention of a customer as the letters in the CAF are so small that it cannot catch sight of a normal person and is also not possible on his part to go through the terms and conditions mentioned in  it.
6.                 The Opposite Parties have mentioned in their written statements that telecommunication network used for network services is made available on as is-as-available basis and Airtel makes no representation, guarantee and warrantee regarding the availability, fitness, quality and reliability of the network whatsoever. The very admission of the Opposite Parties in Para-14 of written statement makes a clear exposer of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice practiced by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are bound to inform the customer regarding the availability of networks in different areas especially in the area where they are providing SIM to the customers. Since most of the mobiles are pre-paid in nature and the telecommunication company is receiving the money in advance for a stipulated period, they are bound to provide the required services with guaranty and warranty with a viable network in the area. The very admission of the Opposite Parties exposes their act of cheating which ultimately leads to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service thereby causing harassment to a customer.

7.                 As the Opposite Parties have failed to provide the network to the customer even after knowing his address and have failed to remove the defects even after one year from the date of complaint, a clear case of deficiency in service is made out against the Opposite Parties. As a case of deficiency in service and harassment is made out against the Opposite Parties, they are liable to compensate the petitioner for loss and harassment sustained by him because of their callous attitude and hence the order.

O R D E R

                   The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. They are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, harassment and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand only) towards cost of litigation.  The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% from the date of order till it is paid to the complainant.