1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainants in general and complainant No.1 in particular are that he subscribed to the Ops for a net pack of Rs.155/- per month on 08.01.2015 but he suffered as he had not been able to avail the services whenever he needed.  It is submitted that from 15.1.2015 to 19.1.2015 the complainant also could not use the services of the Ops as the whole BSNL net work at Jeypore and other parts of Koraput district was not working.  During that period whenever the complainant wants to use the net services of the Ops, he was finding a flash “net page not available” for which the net pack purchased by the complainant for the scheduled period exhausted without any use.  The complainant also submitted that without providing service for which the OPs have been paid, the Ops have adopted unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service.  Hence the complainants have filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to rectify their deficiency service and the Forum to award a token compensation of Re.1/- in favour of the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the Ops have never assured about the uninterrupted mobile services at the time of providing connection as it depends on fiber computerized mechanism and the mechanism is likely to suffer due to various contingencies which are beyond the control of the Ops.  It is further contended that whenever the mobile service goes out of order for a short period, the Ops take immediate steps to rectify the fault.  The Ops submitted that between 10.01.15 to 19.01.15 there was no total failure of net work but on 16.101.15 and 17.01.15 there was disturbances in service due to OFC media failure for some time only and it was restored immediately.  It is also further contended that the complainant has used his mobile No.9437182144 in between 15.1.2015 to 19.01.2015 which proves that there was net work functioning during that period.  With these and other contentions denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Heard from the complainant as well as A/Rs for the Ops and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case the net pack for Rs.155/- per month of the Ops availed by the complainant on 08.01.2015 has not been denied by the Ops.  The complainant alleges that from 15.01.2015 to 19.01.2015 there were no net work in this area for which he suffered loss and regular problem in net work during that period also made the complainant and other users of the area suffer.  The Ops in their counter stated that they have not assured anybody about the uninterrupted mobile service at the time of providing the connection.

5.                     We take the above contention of the Ops seriously.  Now a day lot of telecom service providers are on the race with the BSNL in the Indian market and they always represent that their services are of a particular standard, quality and grade.  BSNL is a Company unlike other telecom service providers available in the market.  As other companies are and have been representing about their quality of services, BSNL must have represented about its quality of service and it is implied.  Hence the contention of Ops that they have not assured to provide uninterrupted mobile service at the time of providing the connection is after thought and it has no bearing at all.   As such before going into the merits of this case, we can say here that if the guarantee or promise is materially misleading or if there is no reasonable prospect of that quality, the act of the Ops certainly comes under unfair trade practice.

6.                     The complainants alleged that the Ops failed to provide uninterrupted mobile service to them as per their representation resultantly the complainants are subjected to untold miseries caused by the Ops.  In this manner the complainant No.1 stated that from 15.01.15 to 19.01.15 the BSNL net work was out of order for which he could not use internet services in spite of payment of Rs.155/- per month.  The Ops denying the allegations of the complainant stated that some times for the reasons beyond their control, mobile service goes out of order and on 16.01.15 and 17.01.15 there was disturbances in the service due to OFC media failure for some time which was restored immediately and the complainant has used his mobile between 15.01.15 to 19.01.15 daily which evident that there was net work functioning during said period.

7.                     The submission of the Ops that when the mobile service is available, it is evident that the net work was functioning, does not sound good.  Mobile service, net service and any other facility in the era of 4G come to the customers through Tower subject to the facilities are linked to tower by the Ops.  In this case the Ops stated that there was mobile service during the alleged period.  That does not mean that the Ops had linked net functioning facility to that tower on these days.  No specific reply is made by the Ops to that effect.  In the above premises, we are not fully satisfied with the contentions of the Ops that on the alleged dates there was net work to avail internet facilities by the complainant.  The Ops have filed call details of the complainant during relevant period which certainly proves that during that period mobile service was available but it was evident from the call details that the complainant has tried to contact the Tel. No.9437182344 again and again in every minute for more than 10 times which clearly goes to show that there was no quality mobile net work service from 15.01.2015 to 19.01.2015.

8.                     The Ops further stated that due to reasons beyond their control sometimes mobile services and net service were being disrupted and they were taking immediate steps to rectify the problem.  If this is so, the BSNL should bring that fact of disturbances to the knowledge of customers in any mode.  Vulnerable points should be well guarded by the Ops in order to avoid any untoward situation.  Proper coordination must be maintained with construction agencies like PWD, Municipality etc. so that the cables under the earth can be saved.  The Ops nowhere stated that in spite of precautions the mobile and net services disrupted.

9.                     From the above facts and circumstances, it was ascertained that there was delink of net service from 15.01.2015 to 19.01.2015 that to without the knowledge of customers.  It is also true that the BSNL net work was not working then.  For the above reasons, the complainant along with general public must have suffered for said five days.  Disruption of mobile service at the time of use is also a deficiency in service on the part of service providers.    It is a most surprising fact that the Ops did not disclose as to why net services disrupted during those days and the reasons thereto.  Such long disruption of services by the Ops without any intimation and valid reason, in our opinion amounts to serious efficiency in service.  Further by providing net pack of Rs.155/-, the Ops promised to give uninterrupted service for one month but they failed to do so which is a glaring example of unfair trade practice for which the complainant and others suffered.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the Complainant No.1 will be just and proper.  Further the Ops are to be directed to provide quality service uninterruptedly to their customers.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs to the Complainant No.1 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  Further the Ops are directed to provide uninterrupted quality services to the customers at large.

(to dict.)