Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/232/2015

H.Mohamed Ghouse - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Reliance Communication Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

H.Mohamed Ghouse

04 Oct 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   27.05.2015

                                                                        Date of Order :   04.10.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE 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

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.232/2015

WEDNESDAY THIS  4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017

H. Mohamed Ghouse,

Old No.151, New.No.313,

II Floor, Thambu Chetty Street,

Chennai 600 013.                                          .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

 

The Reliance Communications Limited,

Rep. by Authorized Signatory,

No.6, Reliance House,

Haddows Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 006.                                       .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant            :   M/s. H. Mohamed Ghouse.         

Counsel for opposite party          :   M/s. Shivakumar and Suresh  

 

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 direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that he availed Broad Band connection of the opposite party and  he has paid a sum of Rs.1550/- on 2.3.2015 towards such broad band connection.  The Sales Executive of the opposite party represented that the connection will be provided within two days.   But the connection given only on 11.3.2015 i.e. after 10 days.  The complainant further state that after the payment of Rs.1550/- the complainant has received an email while providing the connection the opposite party installed one old modem bearing No. 6337169177, and assured that a new modem will be provided very soon but till 26.5.2015 no new modem provided establishes the deficiency of service. Further the complainant state that the modem providers by the opposite party have no Wife connectivity facility.  Hence the service person of the opposite party demanded further Rs.2000/- for providing Wifi without no bill.   Further the complainant state that on 15.4.2015 onwards in repeated occasions the broad band connection provided by the opposite party was disconnected resulting huge loss and to avail the help of browsing centre on payment.    Out of 7 days from the date of providing connection only 23 days alone the complainant had availed the facility of broad band connection.  The complainant has expended a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards browsing internet from browsing centers charges.  As such the act of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party is  as follows:

      The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party state that the allegation of payment towards the broad band connection is false.      The opposite party also state that after the due payment minimum five days time will be taken for providing broad band i.e. 7.3.2015 the broad band connection was granted.    Further the opposite party state that payment of Rs.2,000/- towards wifi modem router without bill is absolutely false.   The opposite party has not provided any wifi router since no wifi type of broad band  connection was available at that time.  Further the opposite party state that in all occasions immediately after receipt of the complaint proper service has been extended by the opposite party without any further delay.  The disconnection of broad band was only due to fibre which is beyond the control of the opposite party.  But he opposite party has not explained the details regarding the abnormal condition of fibre.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3  marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.   The points for the consideration is:  

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for negligence, mental agony and deficiency of service with cost as prayed for ?

5.      POINT ON : -

          Heard both sides.  Perused the records.   Admittedly the complainant availed Broad Band connection of the opposite party.   The contention of the complainant is that he has paid a sum of Rs.1550/- on 2.3.2015 towards such broad band connection as per Ex.A1 credited into the account of RCIC account.  The Sales Executive of the opposite party represented that the connection will be provided within two days.  But the connection given only on 11.3.2015 i.e. after 10 days.  The complainant further contended that after the payment of Rs.1550/- the complainant has received an email while providing the connection the opposite party installed one old modem bearing No. 6337169177, and assured that a new modem will be provided very soon but till 26.5.2015 no new modem provided establishes the deficiency of service. Further the complainant contended that the modem providers by the opposite party have no Wife connectivity facility.  Hence the service person of the opposite party demanded further Rs.2000/- for providing Wifi without no bill.   Further the complainant contended that on 15.4.2015 onwards in repeated occasions the broad band connection provided by the opposite party was disconnected resulting huge loss and to avail the help of browsing centre on payment.  Out of 77 days from the date of providing connection only 23 days alone the complainant had availed the facility of broad band connection.  The complainant has expended a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards browsing internet from browsing centers charges.  But no documents produced before this forum.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony; negligence and deficiency of service committed by the opposite party.    Hence the complaint is filed by the complainant. 

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party would contend that the allegation of payment towards the broad band connection is false.   But it is apparently  seen from Ex.A1 that a sum of Rs.1550/- was collected by the opposite party is executives towards RCIC account.  The allegation of the complainant that within two days the broad band connection will be provided is false.   After the due payment minimum five days time will be taken for providing broad band i.e. 7.3.2015 the broad band connection was granted.  But there is no record.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that payment of Rs.2,000/- towards wifi modem router without bill is absolutely false.   The opposite party has not provided any wifi router since no wifi type of broad band was available at that time.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that in all occasions immediately after receipt of the complaint proper service has been extended by the opposite party without any further delay.  The disconnection of broad band was only due to fiber which is beyond the control of the opposite party.  But he opposite party has not explained the details regarding the abnormal condition of fibre.  On the other hand majority of days broad band provide to the complainant was disconnected; establish that the complainant was compelled gave the help of browsing centre on payment proves the deficiency of service.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that claim of huge imaginary amount by the complainant is baseless.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- and the point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts 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 Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 4^th day  of  October  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 2.3.2015    - Copy of receipt cum ack. Of payment.

Ex.A2- 11.4.2015  - Copy of summarized bill.

Ex.A3- 2.3.2015    - Copy of order acceptance letter.

Ex.A4- 21.3.2015  - Copy of conversation with the customer care.

Ex.A5- 1.7.2015    - Copy of email correspondence.

Ex.A6- 10.7.2015  - Copy of email correspondence.

Ex.A7- 11.7.2015  - Copy of bill.

Ex.A8- 11.12.2015         - Copy of bill.

Ex.A9- 11.1.2015  - Copy of bill.

 

Opposite party’s side document: -     

Ex.B1-         -       - Copy of Details of service request raised

                               by the complainants.

Ex.B2-         -       -  Bill for the period of April & May 2015.

Ex.B3-         -       -  Copy of Details of the usage of the complainant.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.