Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/191/2016

Dr.Vasantha Roopan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manger You Broad brand India LTD - Opp.Party(s)

K.Jayachandran

08 Feb 2022

ORDER

                                                                     Complaint presented on : 02.11.2016

                                                                      Date of disposal            : 08.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.               : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.191/2016

 

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 08^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                                

Dr.Vasantha Roopan,

New No.Old No.75,

R-Block, Pasumpon Street,

MMDA Colony,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai – 600 106.

                                                                                               …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

The Manager,

You Broadband India Ltd.,

No.2, Sharika Mansion,

Lake Area, 1^st Street,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

.....Opposite Party

Counsel for Complainant                         : M/s.K.Jayachandiran

Counsel for opposite party                       : M/s.A.Thirumaran,K.Magesh

 

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony  with cost of this complaint.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant purchased a Broadband connection (Account No.1248781) from the opposite party (You WTF 1003000 GB 12 months) by paying a sum of Rs.20,436/- towards the cost of the same. On 30.06.2016 the complainant was not able to connect the internet since his internet connection was not available. Immediately the complainant informed the same to the customer care of the opposite party and registered a complaint (Ref.2016063037585) on the same day itself. The internet connection was restored only after 13 days on 14.07.2016 that too after repeated mail and calls from the complainant. Again after two days on 17.07.2016 to the shock and surprise of the complainant, his internet service connection got disconnected. Again he registered a complaint with the opposite party customer care (Ref.2016071705979)  and he was informed from their side that his grievance will be addressed within 4 to 8 hours. But there was no response from their side to rectify the above said defect. Inspite of repeated reminders from the complainant to rectify the above said defect, it has turned deaf ears to the opposite party. The complainant is a doctor by profession. Due to the above said act of the opposite party,  his profession got affected and he suffered a huge loss of income and he has undergone and suffered untold mental agony. The above said act of the opposite party is highly negligent, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation and damages to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

           There is a special remedy provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of deficiency of service by telecom companies, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act is barred. It is true the complainant was a customer of the opposite party. The complainant was being provided blemish free service by the opposite party  and several other customers in that area. During one such circumstances, due to the circumstances beyond the control of this opposite  party, there were breakages in the cable connection disrupting the service to the complainant and other customers in the area. The opposite party upon receipt of complaint from the customers including the complainant had deputed teams to restore and due to the fact that the point of problem wherein the breakages had occurred had to be identified, it had taken some time to pin point the actual location of the problem and thereafter, the complaint was rectified. Due to the above reason there was a disconnection in the connection provided to the complainant. The complaint had renewed service with the opposite party on 28.09.2016 for a period of one year and this shows clearly that the complainant is really satisfied with the services of the opposite party. There was a disruption of about 20 days or so in both the occasions and the complainant was given extension of period i.e additional credit for about 18 days to cover up the disconnection period. It is true that a legal notice was issued by the complainant. It is submitted that even prior to the receipt of the legal notice the defects were rectified and in any case, the complainant was compensated with the number of days lost by providing him 18 days extra connection and therefore nothing survives in this instant complaint. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party.    

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether the re is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost?

          3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

04. POINTS NO.1 & 2

          The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having broadband connection from the 1^st opposite party from 12.10.2015.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.20,436/- towards the cost. On 30.06.2016  the complainant was not able to connect the internet since his internet connection was not available and immediately the complainant informed the same to the opposite party but, the internet connection was restored only after 13 days on 14.07.2016. Again after two days on 17.07.2016 his internet service connection got disconnected and the complainant registered a complaint with the opposite party immediately, but the opposite party failed to rectify the defect inspite of repeated remainders. The complainant is a doctor by profession got affected and suffered financial loss and mental agony.

          05. The opposite party contended that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party and due to the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite party there were breakages in the cable connection disrupting the service to the complainant and other customer in the area. The opposite party upon receipt of complaint from the customers deputed teams to restore the internet connection and  the complainant had renewed  service of the opposite party on 28.09.2016 for a period of one year and this  shows clearly shows that the complainant is really satisfied with the service of the opposite party. The opposite further contended that due to circumstances beyond control of this opposite party the lines were damaged and thereafter upon receipt of the complaint the entire cable was changed. There was a disruption of about 20 days and in both the occasions and the complainant was given extension of period and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          06. Admittedly, the complainant is a customer of opposite party and he purchased broadband connection from the 1^st opposite by paying a sum of Rs.20,436/- towards cost in the year 2015. Ex.A1 is the copy broadband purchased bill. There was a internet dis-connection on 30.06.2016 and the complainant informed the same to the opposite party. The opposite party rectified the defect on only after 13 days. Again on 17.07.2016 internet service connection of the complainant disconnected and the complainant informed the same to the opposite party immediately, but opposite party rectified the defect only after 20 days. The opposite party also admitted the same in the written version. The opposite party contended the disruption of service from 17.07.2016  was disconnected because the civil bodies dig up the area thereby damaging the cables, the manual workers employees of the civil bodies not informed the opposite party about digging in the area  and thereafter the opposite party indentified the fault and rectified the problem. In the previous occasion also civil authority break the  underground cables and therefore the internet connection disconnected and same was rectified after indentified the problem. The opposite party admitted there was disconnection of complainant internet connection for a period of 20 days in both the occasion. The opposite party failed to inform the same to the complainant. It is the duty of the opposite party to rectify the defects within a short period or inform the same to the complainant. Here, in this case the opposite party not informed the problems to complainant inspite of repeated remainders. The complainant issued Ex.A2 letters to the opposite party. The opposite party even after receipt of the letter failed to send any reply to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant issued a legal notice  dated 09.08.2016 (Ex.A3) to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice and Ex.A4 is copy of acknowledgement. The opposite party even after receipt of the notices failed to send any reply. The complainant being the doctor by professions unable to use to internet and same would cause financial loss to the mental agony to the complainant.

          07. The opposite party contended that the complainant has renewed  the service with the opposite party on 28.09.2016 for a period of one year and this clearly shows that the complainant is satisfied the service of the opposite party. The opposite party also filed Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 to show usage of internet service of the opposite party. The complainant using the internet after 28.09.2016. But his internet connection was disconnected from on 17.07.2016 to  27.09.2016. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint. Further the opposite party has not filed any document to show that the civil authority damaged the internet underground cable of the opposite party. The complainant being the customer of the opposite party entitled to use the internet connection without any interruption or disconnection. If any interruption in the internet connection and if it is informed to the opposite party, then it is duty of the opposite party to rectify the defects and provide internet connection to the customer immediately. But here in this case the opposite party failed their duty and same amounts deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Under these circumstances the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost.

          08. Regarding the contention of the opposite party that there is special remedy available under section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act,  the Consumer Protection Act is a  Special Act and as per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, this commission has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and therefore the contention of the opposite party is unsustainable.

09. POINT NO:3

          In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of proceedings.     

          The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of this order to till the date of payment.    

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission  on this the 08^th  day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 12.10.2015                   Broadband purchase bill

Ex.A2 dated 30.06.2016                   Complaint through mail

Ex.A3 dated 09.08.2016                   Legal Notice

Ex.A4 dated 11.08.2016                   Acknowledgement card

LIST OF DOOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF  OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Usage particulars of the complainant from 24.10.2016 to 24.01.2017

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                      Usage particulars of the complainant from 08.06.2018 to 08.09.2018

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT