Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/98/2015

Ranbir Kumar Jajji - Complainant(s)

Versus

The J.E. BSNL Exchange - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Rahul Sharma

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.98 of 2015

                                                        Date of institution: 02.11.2015                     

                                            Date of decision   : 07.04.2017

Ranbir Kumar Jajji, Journalist, Punjab Kesri and Jag Bani News Papers, Shop No.26, Abhishek Computer Typing Opposite Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. The J.E. B.S.N.L. Exchange, near B.D.P.O. Officer, Sirhind Mandi Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.
2. The S.D.O. B.S.N.L. Exchange, near B.D.P.O. Officer, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil & District Fatehgarh Sahib.
3. The General Manager, B.S.N.L. Punjab, Patiala.

…..Opposite parties    

 

Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986

Quorum

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member

       

Present :   Sh. Gurpreet Singh Saini, Adv.Cl. for the complainant.

                  Sh.J.S.Sidhu, Adv.Cl. for the OPs.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                  Complainant, Ranbir Kumar Jajji, Journalist, Punjab Kesri and Jag Bani News Papers, Shop No.26, Abhishek Computer Typing Opposite Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib District Fatehgarh Sahib, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) under Sections 12 & 14  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.                The complainant is having a Internet Connection on Phone No.01763-232061 and paying the advance charges of the said connection for availing Internet facility. But the said internet connection is not working smoothly and the complainant used to make complaint with the OPs within two months. The said internet connection became defective since the start of October 2015 and the complainant lodged complaints with OPs so many times. The said internet connection, after working for about five minutes only, becomes defective and becomes off and the same has remained off since 17.10.2015. Thereafter the complainant made telephonic call on the given phone numbers but official of the OPs did not bother to attend the call of the complainant and when the call was attended, the official of the OPs gave assurance to the complainant that the defect will be cured within half an hour, but all in vain. The complainant also lodged complaint in writing with OP No.3 with a request to remove the defect and to restore the internet connection, but neither the defect has been removed nor the said internet connection restored to the running condition. It is further stated that the complainant is a journalist and there is utmost necessity of internet connection and without internet connection he suffered financial loss, harassment as well as mental agony. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to remove the defect of internet connection and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as monetary loss, Rs.10,000/- as costs of harassment, Rs.5,500/- as counsel fee and Rs.1000/- as misc. expenses.

3.               The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed joint written reply.  In reply to the complaint, the OPs raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable in its present form; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum and has not come with clean hands; the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint; the complainant does not come under the definition of Consumer; the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. As regards to the facts of the complaint, OPs stated that the complainant made complaints in the month of October 2015 and as per record the complaint No.1028406173 lodged on 16.10.2015 was redressed on 19.10.2015. The complainant also made complaint No.1028486139 on 20.10.2015, which was redressed on 23.10.2015. Similarly the complaint No.1028630477 dated 27.10.2015 was redressed on the same day.  It is further stated that the OPs performed its duty properly and there is no deficiency in service on their part. As such, the complainant is not entitled to recover any amount from the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence copy of print out of messages received from OPs Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4, bill dated 04.01.2016 Ex. C-5, copy of payment receipt Ex.C-6, his affidavit Ex. C-7 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal the OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Karam Singh, JTO, Ex. OP-1, authority letter Ex. OP-1/A, letter dated 30.11.2015 Ex. OP-2, copy of service orders Ex. OP-3 to Ex. OP-5, copy of broadband calls Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence.

5.               Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the Ops had committed deficiency in service by not being able to provide the services as promised after regularly receiving the consideration amounts of the bills Ex. C-4 & C-6. He pleaded that non supply of service is a negligent act on the part of the Ops despite repeated requests made by the complainant and the same is established from the sworn affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-7.

6.               On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs objected to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant. He pleaded that vide affidavit of Sh. Karam Singh, JTO, it has been explained in detail that the speed of the internet used to get slow, when the complainant exhausted the limit provided in the plan opted. Learned counsel further pleaded that it is established from messages sent by Ops Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 that the Ops had been promptly answering the complaints of the complainant and rectifying any defect found in the system.  

7.               After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings and evidence, written submissions as well as oral arguments, it is established from the material placed on record that complainant had been facing defect in the internet services provided by the Ops. On the other hand it is also established that the OPs had been promptly redressing the complaints of the complainant and due to exhausting of the plan taken by the complainant, the speed of the internet decreases. We have also observed that no expert opinion had been placed on record in order to prove that the services provided were faulty.

8.               Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, we find that no deficiency in service has been committed by the Ops. However as a matter of advice, we recommend the OPs to get the internet connection thoroughly checked and complainant be intimated about the technical or plan problem. Hence the present complaint is hereby disposed of with the aforestated observation.    

9.               Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.    

Pronounced                                     

  Dated: 07.04.2017

                                                                         (A.P.S.Rajput)

                                                                         President

                                                                           

                                                                            (Inder Jit)   

                                                                                    Member