DATE OF FILING : 3.12.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 28^th day of February, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.256/2010

Between

Complainant : Nisha, W/o Anil,

Korattiparambil House,

Nellappara P.O., Kurinji,

Ramapuram, Kottayam District.

(By Advs: K. Pradeepkumar & Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,

My idea (RR Communications),

Kanjiramattom Bypass Road, Thodupuzha,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

2. The Chairman,

IDEA Cellular Ltd.,

Suman tower, Plot No.18, Sector 11,

Gandhinagar – 390 211,

Gujarat.

3. IDEA Cellular Ltd.,

Grounnd Floor, Mercy Estate,

Ravipuram, Cochin -15,

Ernakulam District.

(By Advs: George V. Thomas

& Thomas Kavumkal)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant availed a broad band internet connection of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties from the 1^st opposite party on 31.8.2010, by paying Rs.2,360/-. The amount was received by the 1^st opposite party and an instrument named idea net setter was handed over to the complainant and advised the complainant to fit the instrument to her laptop or computer system. Complainant fitted the instrument to the laptop and she got the connection for about 4 hours. On the next day also she got the connection for about 2 hours. Afterwards, the connection was interrupted. When the system starts operation, connection will get for about 2 or 3 minutes only. Matter was informed to the 1^st opposite party, on 2.9.2010. The complainant visited the 1^st opposite party's office five times, but the opposite party said that they have no responsibility and they are authorised to sell the same only and asked the complainant to contact the third opposite party. So the complainant filed complaint to the 3^rd opposite party's office at Ernakulam. After making many representations, some service persons visited complainant's residence and tried to connect the internet connection. But at the time also the connection sustained only for 3 minutes. So the service persons said that it is due to the

(cont.....2)

- 2 -

defect of the petitioner's laptop. But it is not true. Petitioner had tried to fit the instrument in seven other systems, it did not work in any of the systems. Furthermore the complainant checked the system with the experts of samsung show room at Ernakulam. The complainant was informed that there is no defect to the system. As the internet connection is not working, the complainant demanded to return the price after taking the instrument. But the opposite parties are not willing to take back the instrument or return the money received. Finally, 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that 3G facility will be introduced soon and on introduction of the same the complainant will get the connection, so requested the complainant to wait till then. The complainant is not ready to do so. In the meanwhile, 2^nd opposite party sent a bill for Rs.1,394.09/- dated 26^th October, 2010. 2^nd opposite party is not entitled to issue the bill without the internet connection. The complainant took the connection for doing an on line job contract for a company. As the connection was not working for the past two and half months, the complainant could not work for that period and she lost the job opportunity. So the petition is filed for the loss suffered by the complainant as Rs.50,000/- and also for directing the opposite parties to take back the defective instrument and return Rs.2,360/- and it is also requested for cancelling the bill issued by the opposite party for Rs.1,394.09/-.

The opposite party filed a petition for getting the net setter number of the complainant's connection, the details of the connection can be availed only with the number of the net connection and also for filing the written version. The same has been issued as per the Order of this Forum by the complainant and as per the written version filed by the opposite party, the opposite parties are providing telecommunication service under license from Government of India and coming under the purview of Indian Telegraph Act. Rule 413 of the Telegraph Rules provides that all services relating to telephone are subject to Telegraph Rules. As per Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act, if any dispute concerning any telegraph line, appliance or apparatus arises between the telegraph authority and the person or whose benefit the line, appliance or apparatus is, or has been provided, the dispute shall be determined by arbitration and shall, for the purpose of such determination, be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government either specifically for the determination of that dispute or generally for the determination of disputes under this section. The award of the arbitrator appointed under sub-section (1) shall be conclusive between the parties to the dispute and shall not be questioned in any Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India considered the said matter in Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004 declared that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone service, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is by implication barred. The copy of said judgement is produced.

So we think that the matter concerned is a defect in the broad band internet connection purchased by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.2,360/- on 31.8.2010. The instrument named “idea net setter” was handed over to the complainant and advised the complainant to fit the instrument to her laptop or computer system. It was working for 4 hours on that day and on the next day for about 2 hours. After that the connection was interrupted. When the system starts operation, connection will get for about 2 or 3 minutes only. This matter was duly informed by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party several times and complaints were issued to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. But they never cured the defect of the instrument and advised the complainant that there is some defect in her laptop. But the complainant checked the laptop in the Samsung company and found that there is no defect in the system. Eventhough the instrument provided by the opposite party connected to another computers, it was not working. So the said matter in dispute is an internet connection purchased by a consideration of Rs.2,360/- by the complainant and

(cont......3)

- 3 -

the bill for the same is also produced by the complainant dated 31.8.2010 issued by the opposite

party. Several times the complainant reminded the dispute to the opposite parties, the opposite parties never repaired the same. So we think that it is a deficiency from the part of the opposite party and it is not under the purview of the Telegraph Act. It is an instrument purchased by the complainant for a broad band connection and it is not a telephone line. The opposite parties several times tried to cure the defect of the same, but it was not cured. So the opposite parties are entitled to take back the defective instrument and to return the amount paid by the complainant.

Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite parties are directed to take back the “idea net setter” given to the complainant and pay Rs.2,360/- to the complainant as per the bill produced by the complainant which is issued by the opposite party and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2011

                                  Sd/-
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

                       Sd/-
 

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

                       Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Nil.