ORDER

Under section 12(3) of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

             The Complainant has sought direction against the Opposite party/Bharathi Airtel India Pvt. Ltd. to set right the signal problem (internet speed) and till it was carried out, to pay the compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- with interest at 18% alongwith the compensation of Rs.1 lakhs and the litigation charges.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he has been using the SIM of the Opposite party company with effect from 20.12.16 with mobile no.9964750123 and also using the internet as a postpaid customer.  He is getting the problem of NIL signals in his house and thereby became unable to use it in the house, which made him to lose his some of his business. The Opposite party endorses his problem but has not resolved, but advices him to find out the place for installation of new tower. Hence he got issued the legal notice and then also his problem was not solved. He is seeking direction against the Opposite party for installation of towers at his required area with high internet signals/speed. Hence this complaint filed with the copies of email correspondences about 32 pages and the copies of legal notice of about 5 pages.

          3. The Complainant though filed the complaint on 10.04.17 appeared before the forum on 06.07.17 and on 22.08.17 and remained absent on other hearing dates.

          4. Perusal of emails dtd.18.01.17 and 10.02.17 show that he has admitted that he is facing problem only in his house and his complaint is also with reference to that spot only and the technical engineer confirmed the signal problem found in his house. The emails show that he is repeatedly complained about the same problem for which the Opposite party assured to look out for the suitable place for erecting the tower, if he helps them to find the suitable location.

          5. The doc.no.2/legal notice copy is not supported by any postal receipts or the postal acknowledgements and the date mentioned therein as 52.02.2017 also makes it unreliable and thereby it becomes document having no evidentiary value.

          6. The email transactions show that it is not the problem to be solved by the Opposite party in their system. It is the problem of the Complainant using it in not reachable place/his house, which is specifically mentioned. Thereby the said problem cannot be shifted to the Opposite party. It appears that the Complainant is doing business through the internet system and thereby has been paying average of Rs.6,000/- per month and hence it can be inferred that he has been doing business using it in other business places but finding it difficult when he stays in his house. There is provision for changing of place to use his sim card instead of blaming the service provider. Such attitude of the Complainant does not permit him to find fault with the Opposite party, so as to treat their service as deficiency in service. There is no allegation that service provided by the Opposite party is defective one and there is no deficiency in service in the service offered by them. The problem regarding not reachable places for the sim card has to be managed by the Complainant himself. He has no right to say that for his purpose more powerful tower has to be installed near his house.  In the result he deserves to get the following.                     

  ORDER

The CC.No.629/2017 filed by the Complainant is rejected u/s 12(3) of CP Act. No order as to costs.         

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 18^th September 2017).