Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/40/2016

M/s.Punjab Association - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, M/s.Bharathi Airtel Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.B.Divakaran

05 Nov 2019

ORDER

                                                                             Date of filing      : 10.02.2016

                                                                               Date of Disposal : 05.11.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.40/2016

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 05^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019

                                 

M/s. Punjab Association (Regd.),

Represented by its General Secretary,

No.97 (Old No.46), V.M. Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                       ..Versus..

 

The Manager,

M/s. Bharathi Airtel Ltd.,

No.101, Bharathi Towers,

Santhome High Road,

Santhome,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant      : M/s. B. Divakaran & others

Counsel for the opposite party  : M/s. Iyer & Thomas & others

 

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 prays to remove the Tower installed in the complainant’s premises namely; Padma Adarsh MHS School, OMR, Padur Post, Vaniyanchavadi, Chennai – 603 103, to refund a sum of Rs.61,798/- received from the complainant towards installation of the defective tower and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.

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

The complainant submits that he is a Registered Charitable Association doing social work, education and medical help to the handicapped persons, orphans and fallen women etc.  The complainant started several institutions in which one of the institutions namely; Padma Adarsh MHS School wherein, the complainant is running a home for Destitute and Children.  The complainant wanted to install Internet leased Port connectivity for installing CCTV for the safety of the inmates.  The opposite party offered to install the required tower and provide the uninterrupted free internet services.   The complainant submits that due order dated:30.06.2014 was given to the opposite party for providing the service and paid an advance amount of Rs.61,798/-.  The complainant submits that even after payment, the opposite parties turned deaf ears for a long time and there is a delay of 4 months for fixing the tower.  The complainant submits that the opposite party fixed the tower which was in the place demarked on the top of the home for destitute and Children building within the Padma Adarsh MHS School premises where the generator and other electrical facilities were available and CCTV could be connected.  

2.     The complainant submits that the opposite parties removed the tower on the other hand on their own without the consent of the complainant and reinstalled the tower in another building within the school premises.  Immediately, the complainant call upon the opposite party and requested to relocate the tower since some troubles in receiving the signal etc.  During the month of November 2014, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to reinstall the tower which was originally identified and installed.  But the opposite party delayed the work for one year and the defective installation defeated the sole purpose the complainant.  The opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects are relocated the tower.  Hence, the complainant sent an email dated:31.07.2015 for rectifying the defects.  But the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:26.08.2015 for removal of the tower installed by the opposite party and claiming of the refund of a sum of Rs.61,798/- for which the opposite party has not sent any reply.  Because of the high handed action of the opposite party, the complainant could not put to use the CCTV for the safety of the inmates at the home for Destitute and Children.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite party states that this Forum have no jurisdiction to file this case.  The complainant had placed an order on 30.06.2014 as per the terms and conditions.  As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement as per clause 6 which reads as follows:

“In case of any disputes with respect to the payments and official communication has to be marked to the account manager within a time period of 15 days.  In the event that the payment is not received within the stipulated period, customer could be charged an interest of 2% per month on the outstanding amount for the delay in payment.  All disputes will be under the Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts”.  Therefore, the complaint per-se is not maintainable as, as per the terms of the contract the complainant should have filed the said case before the Courts at Delhi.  It is trite principle that if both the parties accept to the Jurisdiction of a particular Court then both the parties shall be bound by the terms of the contract.  The complainant has also signed the contract and had accepted the Jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi.  The complainant has suppressed the fact and tried to deceive this Hon’ble Forum”.

4.     The opposite party states that the complainant is one of the customer of the opposite party availed Internet Leased Port service in one of its institution approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party for Radiofrequency link to be installed at Padma Adarsh MHS School, OMR, wherein the destitute and children are residing.  The opposite party states that the executives spoken to the complainant’s representative to one Ms. Aruna through phone and conducted feasibility survey on the building and suggested to install  RF link of the building which is Ground plus three floors.   The complainant had issued a letter dated:07.11.2014 as per the purchase order dated:30.06.2014. The opposite party states that after the commissioning and installation of the network to the satisfaction of the complainant suddenly the complainant’s representative  Ms. Aruna requested to shift the RF link to the hostel building and internet services to be delivered on the ground floor of the building.  After due clarifications, the opposite party told that the change in location cannot be done unless a shifting order is placed with costs required for shifting.   The opposite party states that he had installed and commissioned the RF link only after conducting the necessary feasibility checks and thereafter obtaining consent of the complainant and to the satisfaction of the complainant as indicated in the letter of commissioning from the complainant as per request of the complainant at the installation address.  The complainant had also issued the letter of commissioning dated:07.11.2014 as per the purchase order dated:30.06.2014 acknowledging and accepting the commissioning of the network is to their satisfaction. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the opposite party is liable to remove the Tower installed at Padma Adarsh MHS School and return the amount of Rs.61,798/- paid towards installation charges as prayed for?
2. Whether the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that it is a Registered Charitable Association doing social work, education and medical help to the handicapped persons, orphans and fallen women etc.  The complainant started several institutions in which one of the institutions namely; Padma Adarsh MHS School wherein, the complainant is running a home for Destitute and Children.  The complainant wanted to install Internet leased Port connectivity for installing CCTV for the safety of the inmates.  The opposite party offered to install the required tower and provide the uninterrupted free internet services.   Further the contention of the complainant is that due order dated:30.06.2014 was given to the opposite party for providing the service and paid an advance amount of Rs.61,798/-.   Ex.A1 is the copy of invoice dated:05.07.2014.  Further the contention of the complainant is that even after payment, the opposite parties turned deaf ears for a long time and there is a delay of 4 months for fixing the tower.   Further, the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party fixed the tower which was in the place earmarked on the top of the home for destitute and Children building within the Padma Adarsh MHS School premises where the generator and other electrical facilities were available and CCTV could be connected.  

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties removed the tower on their own without the consent of the complainant and reinstalled the tower in another building within the school premises proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Immediately the complainant called upon the opposite party and requested to relocate the tower since some troubles in receiving the signal etc.   During the month of November 2014, the complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to reinstall the tower which was originally identified.  But the opposite party delayed the work for one year and the defective installation defeated the sole purpose of the complainant.  The opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects and relocate the tower.  Hence, the complainant sent an email dated:31.07.2015 for rectifying the defects.  But the opposite party has not come forward to rectify the defects.  Thereafter, the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:26.08.2015, Ex.A2  for the removal of the tower installed by the opposite party and claiming refund of a sum of Rs.61,798/- for which the opposite party has not sent any reply.  The high handed act of the opposite party caused great inconvenience resulting the complainant could not put to use the CCTV for the safety of the inmates at the home for Destitute and Children proves the unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.61,798/- and removal of the tower with compensation.

9.     The contention of the opposite party is that this Forum have no jurisdiction to file this case.  The complainant had placed an order on 30.06.2014.  As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement clause 6 which reads as follows:

“In case of any disputes with respect to the payments and official communication has to be marked to the account manager within a time period of 15 days.  In the event that the payment is not received within the stipulated period, customer could be charged an interest of 2% per month on the outstanding amount for the delay in payment.  All disputes will be under the Jurisdiction of Delhi Courts”.  Therefore, the complaint per-se is not maintainable as, as per the terms of the contract the complainant should have filed the said case before the Courts at Delhi.  It is trite principle that if both the parties accept to the Jurisdiction of a particular Court then both the parties shall be bound by the terms of the contract.  The complainant has also signed the contract and had accepted the Jurisdiction of the Court at Delhi.  The complainant has suppressed the fact and tried to deceive this Hon’ble Forum”.

But admittedly, the payment were made at Chennai.  The installation of tower and provision of internet also to be at Chennai.  Hence, the allegation of Jurisdiction is not sustainable.   

10.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is one of the customer of the opposite party availed Internet Leased Port service in one of its institution approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party for Radiofrequency link to be installed at Padma Adarsh MHS School, OMR, wherein the destitute and children are residing.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the executives spoken to the complainant’s representative to one Ms. Aruna through phone and conducted feasibility survey on the building and suggested to install  RF link of the building which is Ground plus three floors.   The complainant had issued a letter dated:07.11.2014 as per the purchase order dated:30.06.2014.   But no letter filed in this Forum. 

11.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that after the commissioning and installation of the network to the satisfaction of the complainant suddenly the complainant’s representative  Ms. Aruna requested to shift the RF link  to the hostel building and internet services to be delivered on the ground floor of the building.  After due clarifications, the opposite party told that the change in location cannot be done unless a shifting order is placed with costs required for shifting.   But the opposite party has not pleaded anything about the place identified by the complainant for due erection of tower, reinstallation of RF link.  The opposite party has not produced any documents to prove the survey and claiming of shifting charges proves the unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.61,798/- being amount received from the complainant towards installation of defective tower and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.61,798/- (Rupees Sixty one thousand seven hundred and ninety eight only) being amount received from the complainant towards installation of defective tower and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 05^th day of November 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	05.07.2014	Copy of payment voucher
Ex.A2	26.08.2015	Copy of legal notice
Ex.A3		Copy of acknowledgment card

 

OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                                  PRESIDENT