This case coming on 03.07.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K. Ch. Rama Krishna & Sri A. Appa Rao, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri K.V.S.V. Prasada Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

                                                ORDER

(As per the Honourable Male Member on behalf of the Bench)

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order in his favour and against the Opposite Parties:  a) for an amount of Rs.2,483/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred and eighty three only) together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on it from 08.12.2010 till realization; b) Compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering; c) For the costs of the complaint and d) For such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

2.       The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

3.       The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the complaint, is that approached by the Opposite Parties executive by name Mr. Nagesh, the Complainant had opted ‘You Discover’ plan with 4 Mbps bandwidth speed with three months validity with 12 GB free usage by paying a sum of Rs.2,428/- by way of a cheque bearing No.184197 and dated 07.12.2010 and drawn on ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Venkojipalem Branch.    The Opposite Parties executives have charged Rs.550/- towards installation charges even though the pamphlet supplied by the Opposite Parties discloses free installation.     As the Complainant was in urgent need of internet connection with high speed bandwidth he had no other option rather than choosing the Opposite Parties service as the Opposite Parties executive promised to give the connection within 48 hours.   The Opposite Parties executive took a photo copy of PAN of the Complainant towards ID proof and a blank letter head of the Complainant towards address proof together with a passport size photograph and a cheque for Rs.2,428/- while filling the Customer Registration Form.  The Complainant stated that on 08.12.2010 the Complainant had received a SMS to his mobile bearing No.9885787734 from ‘YOU’ stating that “thanks for payment of Rs.2,428/- through Kolli Venkata Nageswara Rao, by cheque No.184197” and on the same day at around 7:30 p.m. the Complainant received another SMS with details of a/c number, login ID and Password and which also stated that the Opposite Parties executive would reach shortly.   On 10.12.2010 the Complainant received another SMS to his mobile stating that he was registered as a customer of “YOU”.     But as no executives have approached the Complainant to give connection and Mr. Nagesh who had promised to install net connection by 09.12.2010 itself was not even responding to call made to his mobile, the Complainant on 11.12.2010 lodged a complaint at about 1:15 pm.  to the Opposite Parties call center executives stating that there was no response from local office (2^nd Opposite Party) more particularly when they have promised to install broadband connection by 09.12.2010.    The executive at the call center of the Opposite Parties had promised to see that the broadband connection would be installed by evening of the same day after their executives take the Complainant’s appointment whereas without seeking appointment, the executives of the Opposite Parties’ company approached the Complainant’s place and installed the broadband connection at around 7:00 pm. on 11.12.2010 due to the effect of the complaint lodged by the Complainant with the Opposite Parties call center.   From the date of the broadband connection one or the other problem crept in and the speed of the bandwidth is abysmal slow and is no way matching with the bandwidth speed plan that was chosen by the Complainant as the speed provided by the Opposite Parties was not even 64 kbps and most of the times the speed was zero.   The Complainant gave several complaints to the Opposite Parties but there was no response.   As such, fed up with the Opposite Parties attitude, the Complainant gave a complaint on 14.12.2010 to the Opposite Parties call center executive about the abysmal speed vide Complaint No.2010121300400, and the executive at the call center of the Opposite Parties have promised to rectify the bandwidth speed problem within 24 working hours and the Complainant waited for rectification of the bandwidth speed but there was no call from the Opposite Parties side nor any improvement in the speed.    The Complainant patiently waited to enable the Opposite Parties to rectify the bandwidth speed but there was no response from the Opposite Parties side itself shows volumes that the Opposite Parties are lethargic in responding to the complaints from the Opposite Parties customers, more particularly with respect to complaints on bandwidth speed.   Fed up with the attitude of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant has called to the Opposite Parties call center on 18.12.2010 and got cancelled the connection vide Complaint No.2010121813022 and the said call center executive has replied that within 7 days, their executive will come and collect the modem and within 45 days they will refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant.   Since 14.12.2010 the Complainant had stopped using the broadband connection provided by the Opposite Parties.   While things are so, no executive came to the Complainant’s place to collect the modem nor called him, as such, the Complainant once again lodged a complaint before the Opposite Parties call center on 07.01.2011 vide complaint No.2011010706728.     Even then the Opposite Parties did not take back the modem nor refunded the entire amount to the Complainant till  date.   Providing broadband connection, knowing well that the Opposite Parties did not have feasibility to provide with 4 mbps bandwidth, the Opposite Parties have deliberately cheated the Complainant and keeping mum when complaints are lodged on bandwidth speed and failure on the Opposite Parties to refund the entire amount paid by the Complainant, amounts to deficiency of service.    The Complainant was astonished to receive a SMS from the Opposite Parties Company to his mobile on 21.02.2011 at about 10:10 am. and also on subsequent day, which said that the Complainant’s account was suspended due to expiry of validity and to pay immediately to activate the service.    When the Complainant had got the connection cancelled in December, 2010 itself i.e., within a week of its installation on account of poor bandwidth speed  being provided by the Opposite Parties, the question of suspension of the account did not arise.  If the Opposite Parties had not cancelled the connection provided to the Complainant, then the validity of the connection was till second week of March, 2011.   Thus, the Opposite Parties to cover up their latches have sent the SMS to the mobile of the Complainant.    If the Complainant’s connection was not cancelled then why the call center executives have promised to take back the modem within seven days.    The Complainant had tried several times to the call center of the Opposite Parties to know the status of his earlier complaints, but he could not get connected as the route was busy.   As such, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 22.02.2011 to the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.2,428/- with accrued interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum together with a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation to the Complainant within seven days of receipt of this legal notice.     The Opposite Parties in spite of receipt of the legal notice have kept quiet and had even not sent any reply nor complied the notice. The Complainant was surprised to get calls to his mobile from the executives of the Opposite Parties seeking renewal of the connection more particularly after they received the legal notice.    The acts of the Opposite Parties squarely fall under deficiency of service and both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable.    The Complainant has no other option rather than approach this Forum to get his grievance redressed.    Hence, this Complaint.  

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.   Exs. A1 to A5 are marked for the Complainant.

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 contended as can be seen from their counter, that the Complainant executed the documents with the Opposite Parties’ company at the time of application on 07.12.2010 the Complainant submitted his requisition letter for address proof along with (1) Customer Registration Form (CRF), and (2) Photo copy of Complainant’s PAN Card.      The 4^th condition of the CRF  clearly and categorically mentioned that “ The commissioning of services is subject to technical feasibility of the connection and realization of payment.    The company shall not be responsible for any direct, consequential, or other loss incurred or suffered by the subscriber due to delay in installation or commissioning of service.    The Company will be refund payments received in the event of non-feasibility”.    Immediately, after receipt of the payment from the Complainant, the Opposite Parties company started the process for installation and allotted the account relationship No.617303, Login ID and Password on 08.12.2010 and thereafter activated the service connection on 11.12.2010, since then the Complainant used the said Internet Connection till 17.12.2010 under the Plan-4Mbps 12 GB from the Opposite Parties company, within the stipulated time of this company, so there is no delay.     The Opposite Parties stated that regarding the installation charges in the pamphlet, the said pamphlet distributed and announced to the public subsequent to the connection of the Complainant, as such terms of the said pamphlet are not applicable to this case.   If the said pamphlet was in existence at the time of taken connection of the Complainant, why the Complainant paid the installation charges to the Opposite Parties and why he has not raised any objection at the time of filling the CRF form, clearly shows that and established before the eye of law that there was non-refundable installation charges of Rs.550/-.  It is clearly established before the eye of law that there is no free installation at the time of activation of the Complainant’s Internet Connection.  The Opposite Parties further stated that regarding the return of subscription charges,  in this case the Complainant took the domestic prepaid connection and paid subscription charges for 3 months under the plan of 4 Mbps up to 12 GB from the Opposite Parties’ Company, the Complainant had bound to use the said connection within 3 months up to 12 GB, but the Complainant used the said connection till 17.12.2010 from 11.12.2010.   In the circumstances, the Opposite Parties Company could not return the amount; the Complainant used the said internet connection for some time.   As per the regulations of the TRAI and terms of the Opposite Parties’ company, once the customer took and used the Internet Connection under the prepaid plans, after expiry of the said period, Internet Connection also suspended.   In this case, the Complainant made a complaint that his Internet Connection did not work with proper speed, then officials of the Opposite Parties’ company visited and observed that the Complainant’s brother used the said Internet Connection for Commercial purpose not for Demestic purpose, as such, it could not be worked proper speed, then immediately the officials of the Opposite Parties Company informed that the said connection is for Demestic one not for Commercial one and there is a difference in various speeds and rates in between Commercial and Domestic Internet Connections, but the Complainant and his brother did not hear the words of Company officials and further the Complainant made a complaint that he want to stop the said Internet Connection, then Company officials informed that it is a prepaid Internet Connection 3 months 4 Mbps 12 GB plan and as such, it must be used within the 3 months period, but it could not refund subscription charges.   The Opposite Parties further stated that regarding the Modem Deposit (refundable),  in this case the Complainant paid the Modem Deposit of Rs.500/- at the time of taking connection and it was a refundable deposit  45 days after taking back the modem from the Complainant.   Whenever the Opposite Parties’ Company officials visited the house of Complainant for taking back the modem, the Complainant stated that after return of the entire amount of Rs.2,483/- only he would return the modem.   As such, the Opposite Parties’ Company could not arrange the refund of Modem Deposit of Rs.500/- to the Complainant.     In these circumstances, this Forum may be pleased to direct the Complainant to return the Modem to the Opposite Parties’ Company and take back his Modem Deposit of Rs.500/-.     

6.       The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed an evidence affidavit by the 2^nd Opposite Party and also written arguments to buttress their contention.       Exs.B1 to Ex.B5 are marked for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.      

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant chose a prepaid Internet Connection paying Rs.1,378/-.   As such, he cannot get it back.  Installation charges of Rs.550/- is also non-refundable.   But the Modem Deposit of Rs.500/- is refundable on retuning the modem to the Opposite Parties.   These facts can be readily seen from Ex.A1 Customer Registration Form.    All the same, it can also be clearly seen that the Complainant is totally disgusted with the service quality of the Opposite Parties and reacted promptly by cancelling the connection on 18.12.2010, within a week itself, though the connection was given on 11.12.2010 evening.   This clearly shows the dismal performance of the Opposite Parties Broadband Connection in question.   Moreover, within this short span of 7 days, the Complainant was forced to give complaints to the Opposite Parties regarding their service on different dates viz., on 11.12.2010, on 14.12.2010 and also on 18.12.2010.   Later on he gave complaint on 07.01.2011.   As there was no positive response from the Opposite Parties, the Complainant was also forced to issue a legal notice on 22.02.2011 to the Opposite Parties.   Though the Opposite Parties received the said notice, as per the Ex.A4 communication of the Postal Authorities, the Opposite Parties did not respond.   All this shows that there is outright deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.   As the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties should have caused much physical hardship and mental agony to the Complainant, he is entitled to suitable compensation.   As the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to costs of this complaint too.   As per Ex.A1 Customer Registration Form, the Complainant is entitled to get the refund of Modem Deposit of Rs.500/- with interest from the date of his request for cancellation i.e., from 18.12.2010.

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 and 2: 1) to refund the modem deposit of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 18.12.2010 till the date of actual realization, and to pay 2) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and 3) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.   The Complainant has to give back the modem to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 immediately after compliance of this Forum’s order by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.

        Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 24^th day of July, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

President                                                                            Male Member

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

For the Opposite Parties:-                                 

Sd/-                                                                                          Sd/-

President                                                                            Male Member

tify;l4
�"hi
�#@$>