This case is coming for final hearing on 05-01-2015 in the presence of Complainant in person and Sri K.V.S.V.Prasada Rao, Advocate for Opposite parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

: O R D E R :

(As per the Honourable Member Sri V.V.L.Narasimha Rao on behalf of the Bench)

1. The Complainant filed the present Complaint under Sec.12 of C.P.Act against the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 on 12.02.2014 and requested the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties (1) to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to me (2) to make up for the mistake by refunding the Broadband Charges of Rs.2,899/- (3) to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for physical and mental strain (4) to pay costs of Rs.2,000/-.

2. The brief averments are as follows: The Complainant submits that she is resident of Door No.18-104/7, SF-3, P.M.Palem, Visakhapatnam-530048 took Internet Connection No.1012291 vide Registration No.2014012704372 on 27.01.2014 for the period of 3 months only and for that said Internet Connection she has paid Rs.2,899/- to the Opposite Parties. As per terms the Opposite Party has to provide uninterrupted Internet Connection to the Complainant from the date of activation on 28.01.2014. As the Internet connection is not connecting properly, the complainant requested the Customer Care of the Opposite Party at the Branch Office of the 1^st Opposite Party i.e. 2^nd Opposite Party. Even after giving two complaints vide 2014012808076 & 2014013118644, the Opposite Parties did not responded for the same and also the Internet Connection which was given to the Complainant was from the shared modem which was fixed in the existing customer, who is the resident of the same apartment complex, where the complainant is residing. As the existing customer (in whose house the shared modem is fixed) did not use the shared modem often he used to disconnect the power supply and thereby there is a disturbance for the internet connection to the complainant. Due to the inconvenience in connectivity of the Internet connection the Complainant often used to request the existing customer for utilization of her connection. Even the complainant gave the complaint to the grievance authority of Opposite Party and for that also the Opposite Party did not responded and hence the Complainant was forced to ask for cancellation of the service. Hence alleging deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties 1 & 2, the present complaint is filed seeking reliefs as sought for.

3. Notices were served to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2. On behalf of Opposite Parties 1 & 2 Sri K.V.S.V.Prasada Rao, Advocate filed Vakalatnama and Counter was filed on behalf of 2^nd Opposite Party. The Counter filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party was adopted by the 1^st Opposite Party vide Adoption Memo dt.4.6.2014.

4. In the counter the Opposite Parties stated as follows. The Complainant is residing in D.No.18-104-7, SF-3, PM Palem, Visakhapatnam-48 and she has obtained Internet Connection A/c No.1012291 from the Opposite Party on 27.1.2014 for a period of 3 months and paid Rs.2899/- to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant knows that her Internet connection is from shared modem. It seems the complainant is facing disconnection of the Internet connection when the existing customer in whose house the shared modem is fixed is stopping the power supply. When the Opposite Party received the complaints from the Complainant, the officials of the Opposite Parties visited the place of the Internet connection and viewing the problem, the Opposite Parties requested the Complainant to keep the shared modem at their residence but the Complainant and her husband refused for the same. As per regulations of the TRAI and the terms of the Opposite Party company, once the customer taken and use the Net connection under pre-paid plans, after the expiry of the period the same cannot be carried forward or the amount paid for the connection will not be returned. As the complainant is making complaints with regarding to the power switch off problem with the existing customer in whose house the shared modem is  fixed, it clearly shows that there is no fault on part of the Opposite Parties. That too as seen from the transactions done between the Complainant and the Opposite Party already 3 months lapsed from the date of suspension of the connection. As per the terms, the complainant is bound to use the Internet Connection within 3 months only and thereby the said connection will be automatically suspended. Though the officials of the Opposite Party advised the Complainant and her husband to provide “common electricity” from the apartment complex to the shared modem, they failed to provide the same for that the company is not liable.  The Complainant has paid the deposit of the Modem Rs.900/- at the time of taking connection and the said amount will be refunded after taking back the modem or disconnecting the connection. So, the refund of entire amount to the complainant is not possible. That too if the complainant provides the electricity to the GOPN shared modem she can utilize the Internet Connection uninterruptedly. Because of the lack of the understanding between the Complainant and the existing customer she could not utilize the same and thereby she cannot allege the Opposite Party for deficiency of service. As per the Condition No.4 mentioned on back side of the Customer Registration Form, it reveals 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 payment received in the event of non-feasibility”. Hence, as there is no deficiency of service on part of the Opposite Parties the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. Observing the facts and circumstances and pleadings of the both sides, the Forum framed the following points  for consideration   a) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of Opposite Parties;    b) To what relief.

6. The Complainant filed her Evidence Affidavit reiterating her version mentioned in the complaint and on her behalf Ex.A1 is marked. On behalf of the Opposite Parties Sri K.Uma Sankar, Sr.Manager (Operations) of 2^nd Opposite Party filed Evidence Affidavit and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked for Opposite Parties 1 & 2. The Complainant and the Opposite Parties filed Written Arguments and also adduced their oral arguments.

7. Point Nos.1 & 2: In this present complaint, the Complainant is requesting the Forum to direct the Opposite Parties for refund of the amount of Rs.2,899/-, as she has faced so much inconvenience in utilizing the Internet Connection A/c No.1012291 obtained on 27.01.2014. The Opposite Parties, while answering to the allegations leveled by the Complainant and mentioning about the terms and conditions of the company and viewing the complaints made by the Complainant i.e. regarding two complaints 2014021105116 and 2014013118644 stated that “as the Complainant is facing connectivity problem of the Internet connection due to the fixation of the shared modem GPON in another customer’s house in the same apartment where the complainant is residing”. That too as the Complainant is stating that, due to the power problem as the shared modem is kept in the existing customer’s house, the Complainant is not getting the internet connection and even the Opposite Party’s officials tried to solve problem for keeping the shared modem GPON in her residence, the complainant refused to accept the same. Thereby there is no fault on part of the Opposite Parties with regarding to the activity problem of the Internet connection.

8. Ex.A1 is the Customer Registration Forum for taking YOU Broadband and Cable India Ltd., wherein it reveals that complainant has paid Rs.1999/- for starter pack charge (+) deposit amount for Modem which is refundable Rs.900/- in toto, the Complainant has paid Rs.2899/- for obtaining broadband connection from Opposite Parties. On the reverse of the Ex.A1 46 terms and conditions were mentioned in very small font which is not even visible to the person who is having perfect eye-sight. Cl.4 of terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse of the Ex.A1 reveals as follows. “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 payment received in the event of non-feasibility”.

9. Ex.B2 & B3 are the identity proofs of the complainant. Ex.B4 is the Customer detail usage from 28.1.2014 to 29.4.2014. Ex.B4 reveals that the Complainant has utilized the internet connection from 28.1.2014 to 12.02.2014 and on 18.02.2014. Ex.B5 is the Modem information which reveals that modem usage is on shared basis. Ex.B6 is the details with regarding to S.No.2014021105116.

10. As seen from the Page No.6 of the Affidavit of Complainant it seems the Complainant is admitting that the problem with the disconnection of the activity of internet connection is with regarding to the supply of the power for modem. As per para No.6 of the Complaint, the Complainant is admitting that the shared modem (confronted as per Ex.B5) is being kept in the existing customer who is also resident of the same apartments where the Complainant is residing. As per the Para No.22 of the Counter Opposite Party is stating that after receiving the complaints, the Opposite Party officials visited the place of connection and requested the existing customer to provide the electricity for shared modem GOPN when he does not use the internet connection. Even the officials requested the complainant and husband to provide electricity to the shared modem by keeping the same in their residence, but the complainant and her husband refused to do so. As seen from Ex.B6 i.e. previous request details with regarding to S.No.2014013118644 it seems in the Column of the Complaint the Complainant (Customer is facing Internet Activity Issue). In the Agent Reply Column it reveals that the Customer Complainant is using GPON TAT even within 24 working hours. Reset modem link is blank”. Observing Ex.B7 previous request details, in Complaint column it reveals that “the customer complaint unable to connect”. In the Agent Reply column it is mentioned as “Try to do basic trouble shooting but she does not ready to this. Customer use GPON connection & so taken his request but customer disconnect the call”. Observing the two complaints given by the Complainant and Ex.B6 & B7 it seems on 1.2.2014 there is a problem of activity of the Internet connection for 4 times. On 3-2-2014 the problem is for two times. On 5.2.2014 there is problem for one time with regarding to connectivity of Internet connection. On 11.2.2014 there is a problem for two times and on 12.02.2014, 13.02.2014, there is one time problem for connectivity of the Internet connection.

11. As seen from the column request history of Ex.B6 & B7 along with the previous request details of Ex.B6 & B7 along with the previous request details of Ex.B6 & B7 it seems since from the initial stage i.e. from 28.1.2014, the complainant is facing activity problem for the internet connection though she has obtained internet connection from the Opposite Parties vide Ex.A1 for 3 months and she has utilized the internet connection until for 17 days from 28.1.2014 to 12.02.2014 and on 18.02.2014. But at the same time observing the version of the both sides along with the admission of the complainant in para No.6 of her affidavit and Complaint along with para No.22 of the counter of the Opposite Parties and Ex.B6 previous request details it seems the main problem with regarding to the connectivity of the internet connection is the shared modem is installed/fixed in house of the another customer and as that customer is stopping the internet connection at his residence when he is not available in the house the complainant is not getting the internet connection. For that Ex.B7 confirms that the Opposite Parties is trying to solve the problem on one or other way and the complainant is not cooperating with the Opposite Parties for keeping the shared modem in her residence. On observing the Ex.B6 previous request details and Ex.B7 previous request details it seems the Opposite Party is trying to solve the problem in one or other way. Hence, we cannot come to a direct conclusion that there is a problem with the Opposite Party in not connecting the internet connection obtained by the Complainant vide Ex.A1.

12. At the same time observing the Ex.B5, Ex.B6 & B7 it seems there are continues obstructions for the activity of the internet connection and thereby the complainant is facing much inconvenience in utilizing the internet connection.Hence we conclude that there is fault on part of Opposite Parties for not intimating the Complainant with regarding to the connectivity of the Internet connection from the shared modem, if it was kept in some other’s house in the initial stage when the Complainant took internet connection from Opposite Parties on 27.1.2014.

13. Observing the Ex.B4 Customer Details usage, it seems the Complainant has utilized the internet connection for 17 days from 28.1.2014 to 12.02.2014 and on 18.02.2014, which values for Rs.547.48 ps (i.e. Rs.2899 ÷ 90 days x 17 days as per Ex.A1). As confronted by para No.12 supra that there is fault on part of Opposite Parties observing Ex.B4, B5, B6, B7 documents we conclude that the only equitable remedy available to the Complainant is refund of amount of Rs.2351.41 ps (i.e. after deducting Rs.547.48 ps from Rs.2899/-) without interest and also basing upon facts and circumstances leveled by the both parties we are of firm decision that the complainant is not entitled for any compensation or costs, failing which the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs.2,351.41 ps till realization.

    Accordingly point Nos. 1 & 2 are answered

14. In the result the complaint is allowed in part to the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for Rs.2,351.41 ps (Rupees Two thousand three hundred fifty one and paise forty one only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, if the said amount is not paid within prescribed time the Opposite Parties are liable to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on 2,351.41 ps from 21.01.2015 till realization. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. No order to costs.

    Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced  by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of January, 2015.

                                

     

             Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

    President (FAC)                                                        Member                                                                                                        District Consumer Forum – I,

                                                                                  Visakhapatnam

     

    APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

     

     

    Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

         Sd/-                                                                               Sd/-

President (FAC)                                                        Member                                                                                                        District Consumer Forum – I,

                                                                              Visakhapatnam