COMPLAINT NO.1002/09

DATED THIS THE 6th NOVEMBER 2009

PRESENT

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER

Complainant:
S.N. Subramanya (Senior Citizen)

118, ‘Lakshmikrupa’ 5th Main Road

I.T.I. Layout-Benson Town

Bangalore-560 046

V/s

Opposite Party:

Principal General Manager

Ist Floor, Telephone House

Rajbhavan Road

Bangalore-560 001
O R D E R

SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:



The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he had broad band internet connection availed from Op. He was paying the bills regularly through ECS from the month of September 2008, Op started giving trouble and it was informed to the concerned officers with no improvement. Then he sent an e-mail on 17/03/2009 to take back modem and disconnect the broad band and to make good loss of Rs.1,000/- for having undergone mental agony. That his granddaughter had to miss number of classes in classical music. That he has handed over three items namely modem, charger and line cord to the officers of Op on 15/04/2009. Op did not reply to his e-mails and therefore prayed for awarding Rs.12,000/- as detailed below. Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- for miscellaneous expenses.



Op has appeared through his Advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable and it is working under the Ministry of Telecommunications, Govt. of India. Op has admitted to had provided broad band internet connection to the complainant which was later on changed to some other mode on 01/10/2008. That he after receiving report of the complainant during September 2008 regarding interruption in the connection, they took up detail investigation and found no fault either in the main equipment or ancillary equipment. As a goodwill gesture rebate in rent was allowed and the same was communicated to the complainant. That they on 16/04/2009 with the request of the complainant disconnected broad band service and received back the equipments. Op further denying that the complainant and his granddaughter have suffered inconvenience and mental agony has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reiterating the contents of the complaint. Heard the complainant and Advocate for Op and perused the records.



The complainant along with complaint has filed a copy of e-mail sent to the Op and acknowledgement having returned the equipments of the OP. Op has not filed affidavit evidence.



On the above materials following points for determination arise.



1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service?

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 : In the negative

Point No.2: To see the final order.



REASONS:



Answer on point No.1 : As referred to above by narrating the complainant allegations in brief, it is the grievance of the complainant that broad band internet connection he had from the Op started giving trouble from September 2008 and it was informed to the officers of the Op but no improvement was made. Thereafter, he sent an e-mail on 17/03/2009 requesting the Op to take back modem and to disconnect the broad band facility and to make good loss of Rs.10,000/- for having undergone mental agony. The fact that the complainant has availed broad band internet facility is admitted by the Op. The complainant has stated that he had informed to the concerned officers about the problem but no improvement had taken place. The complainant though has stated that he had informed the officers concerned regarding trouble in the service has not specified on which date and month he had given the complaint and to whom the complaint was given. As against this Op in Para B of the version has stated that they received the complaint during September 2008 and on the basis of the complaint they received, they held detail investigation and found no fault either in the modem equipment or ancillary equipment. Therefore, it is not that the op ignored the complainant call for service. The statement of the Op that they had detail investigation and found nothing has remained uncontroverted as the complainant had not denied the response of the Op having got the problem attended but found nothing. The statement of the Op that the service was good and nothing wrong was found in it has not been contradicted by the complainant any way. When the matter stood at that stage the complainant sent an email to the Op on 17/03/2009 requesting them to take back the modem and to disconnect the broad band connection. It is on this request, Op has stated to had disconnected the broad band service on 16/04/2009 and also admitted to had received three equipments. Hence, it is found that the Op did not neglect to give efficient service to the complainant. It is not the case of the complainant when the broad band service connection was not functioning, the OP has charged him by causing monetary loss. Even the Op in this regard has stated in the version as goodwill gesture rebate in rent was allowed and it was communicated to the complainant. This statement of the Op has also not been disputed or controverted by the complainant in his affidavit evidence. Further it also not the grievance of the complainant that after sending an email on 17/03/2009 to the Op, Op has caused delay in disconnecting until 16/04/2009 and that the OP has charged him for the service in between the period from 17/03/2009 to 16/04/2009. Hence, even there also OP has not burdened the complainant by charging him. It is on consideration of the entire material before us we hold that the complainant has not been able to pin point to the OP to any specific deficiency he has caused. No doubt, Op has not filed his affidavit evidence but on perusal of the allegations of the complainant and affidavit evidence of the complainant with the reply given by the Op in the form of version do not prove the deficiency in the service of the OP. Hence, we hold that the complainant has not proved that any act or omissions of Op has resulted in deficiency for which Op could be made liable. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.

O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed.