Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/373/2015

M/s.P.Sugumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

01 Jun 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 19.09.2015

                                                                          Date of Order : 01.06.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 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

 

C.C. No.373 /2015

DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 01^ST DAY OF JUNE 2018

P. Sugumar,

S/o. Mr. P. Palanisamy,

No.39, 2^nd Floor,

Dhanakoti Raja Street,

Ekkatuthangal,

Chennai – 600 032.                                                .. Complainant.                                    

 

           ..Versus..

 

1. The Manager,

Sistema Shyam Teleservices Limited,

Ambit IT Park,

No.32, A & B Industrial Estate,

2^nd Floor, Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 058.

 

2.  The Proprietor,

World Vision,

No.42, Thiayagaraya Gramani Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.

 

3. The Proprietor,

Br-Sachin Link,

No.47, New Boag Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                        ..  Opposite parties.

          

For complainant                                 :  Party in person

Counsel for 1^st opposite party           :  M/s. Shivakumar &         

                                                               another

Counsel for 2 & 3^rd opposite parties :  Exparte

 

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 to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for sufferings, mental agony and metal depression and to pay the cost of the complaint.

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

The complainant availed a connection from the 2^nd opposite party for a CMDA USB Data modem card on 19.02.2015 (Model LAVA DR800i) with connection number 8645823486 on 19.02.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/-.  The delivery person also gave suitable demo at the home of the complainant.  The complainant submits that at the time of availing the above said card, the opposite party assured that 9 Mbps speed will be provided.   But on the very next day i.e. on 20.02.2015, while using the data card after due activation, the internet speed was just 0.06 Mbps to 0.14 Mbps.  Hence the complainant approached the  2^nd opposite party  either to resolve the speed or to refund the money.  The opposite parties without taking  effective steps for due resolve of the low speed, claimed bill for the month of March and April 2015.  The complainant sent repeated letters and emails stating that there is no improvement with regard to the internet speed and the data card.  The opposite parties also waived the monthly bills and disconnected the data card.  Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,000/- paid towards purchase of the data card.  The complainant sent emails on 26.02.2015, 06.03.2015, 19.03.2015 & 07.08.2015 but the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.  Since the opposite parties have not refund the amount, the complainant was put to great hardship.  Hence the complaint is filed.

  2.   The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:

The 1^st opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 1^st opposite party states that the complainant had purchased the data card.  Further the 1^st opposite party states that, the achievable aggregate peak physical layer rate on the downlink is  9.8 Mbps.  In wireless network, there is often a distinction made between “peak rate” and typical throughput”.  Hence the user may experience variation in speed.   Further the 1^st opposite party states that the actual throughput can be experienced by the user depends upon the wireless channel condition, number of wireless channels/ Spectrum, speed of the mobile, number of users connected in respective cell, type of user device, type of connectivity & software in dongle, phone, laptop / PC inference levels, obstructions, climate, higher layer protocol overheads etc.  The complainant has suppressed all the conditions in usage of the data card and made complaint against the opposite parties.  Hence as a service gesture and goodwill, the 1^st opposite party cancelled the data card and waived the monthly payment.  The 1^st opposite party also requested the complainant to return back the proof of identity, proof of address as per bill address invoice copy and return of data card (4 nos.) in order to settle the claim of purchase amount.  The complainant without complying the conditions and without taking any steps to return the data card, filed this case and seeking compensation.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

3.     Inspite of receipt of notice, the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and therefore, the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties were set Exparte.  

4.     Though the 2 & 3^rd opposite parties remained Exparte, this Forum is to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials before this Forum. 

5.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 1^st opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are filed and marked on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

6.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-towards compensation from the 1 to 3 opposite parties for mental agony, deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

7.     On point:-

The 2 & 3^rd opposite parties remained Exparte from the very inception.Heard the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.Admittedly, the complainant availed a connection from the 2^nd opposite party for a CMDA USB Data modem card on 19.02.2015 (Model LAVA DR800i) with connection number 8645823486 on 19.02.2015 and paid a sum of Rs.1,000/- as per Ex.A1.The delivery person also gave suitable demo at the home of the complainant.The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that at the time of availing of the above said card, the opposite party assured that 9 Mbps speed will be provided.But on the very next day i.e. on 20.02.2015, while using the data card after due activation, the internet speed was just 0.06 Mbps to 0.14 Mbps.Hence the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite partyeither to resolve the speed or to refund the money.The opposite parties without taking effective steps for due resolve of the low speed, claimed bill for the month of March and April 2015 as per Ex.B1.The complainant sent repeated letters and emails stating that there is no improvement with regard to the internet speed and the data card was not utilised. Thereby, claiming such monthly bills is against the agreement.Considering the speed and other things of the data card, the opposite parties also waived the monthly bills and disconnected the data card.Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.1,000/- paid towards the cost of the data card which is kept idle.The complainant sent emails as per Ex.A2, Ex.A5, Ex.A7 and Ex.A10 but the opposite parties has not come forward to settle the claim of the complainant.Since the opposite parties has not refund the amount, the complainant was put to great hardship and thereby, the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service, mental agony and hardship.But the complainant has not proved the basis for such huge compensation in the manner known to law.

8.  

  In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties  1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) being the cost price of the data card on production of the identity proof, invoice copy and the data card by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above amounts shall be payablewithin 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 01^st day of June 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

		Copy of bill
		Copy of email by the complainant for solving the connectivity issue to the 1st opposite party
		Copy auto acknowledgement email by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of reply mail from the 1st opposite party requesting to share bill copy
		Copy of email by the complainant sharing the bill copy to the 1st opposite party
		Copy auto acknowledgement email by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of email by the complainant to the appellate authority to waive off the bill generated on 16.03.2015
		Copy of auto acknowledgement email by the 1st opposite party
		Copy of reply mail from the appellate regretting to refund the money to the complainant
		Copy of final letter to MTS requesting justice
		Copy of receipt acknowledgement proof of letter sent by the complainant
		Copy of screen shot
		Copy of email from MTS

 

1^ST OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

		Copy of bills for the month of March to May 2015
		Copy of mail sent by the opposite party to the complainant

 

 

 

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT