Date of Filing: 28/08/2017

Date of Order: 26/08/2019

THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 26^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B.Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.2399/2017

V/s

ORDER

 BY SRI.SURESH.D.MEMBER:

1.  This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as O.Ps) alleging deficiency in service and to direct O.Ps to refund of amount paid for broad band  internet connection, and for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and to pass such other order as this Forum deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that:    the complainant renewed internet connection for 6 months plus one month free service as per package policy by name ACT Blaze 6M+1M _FT, on 01.02.2017 for which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.7,238/-.  Complainant felt bad experience with the said connection and problem arose regarding internet connecting  and said issue was raised to the concerned authority. After receiving the complainant, Op did not take any action to replace the set up box or to arrange an alternative by ACT Team.  Instead of resolving the issue, Ops disconnected the internet connection permanently to the residence of complainant on 01.04.2017 without information. Even after disconnection of broadband internet service, Ops did not refund the deposited amount and resolve the issue. Complainant sought refund of subscription, visited his house many times.   All their efforts gone in vain and failed to re instate the connection. Ultimately, complainant sent notice  through registered mail on 26.05.2017 to which OP did not required  or complied  with the demand. Hence this complaint.

3.      Upon service of notice, O.Ps appeared before the Forum and filed its version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, it is vexatious and frivolous and liable  to be dismissed. It is contended that the Op is registered   company engaged in providing   broadband service in the name and style of ACT Fiber net. Complainant approached the Op for obtaining internet broadband service and he applied through an application bearing No.4288524 dated 16.06.2016 opted 6 months package i.e., ACT Blaze 6M+1M _FT offered by the Ops by paying Rs.7,240/- in cash and also he got one month free internet broadband service. Before singing the CAF, complainant red all the terms and conditions and after agreeing to the same he accepted the service wherein the  clauses specifically speaks about permission to install the CX box in his premises, provides  power for the same, and also cost the responsibility on the subscriber ( complainant  to provide all access to install the equipments for commissioning the broadband connection.

4.     It is further contended that the Op deputed a licensed team to the complainant’s premises to set up the CX box.  But  complainant did not accord permission for installation of CX box, even though connection was provided to his home through neighbor house, Op informed the complainant that if his neighbor cancelled internet connection than the CX box would be removed from the premises  and consequently would results in  complainant not having an internet connection.  Complainant accepted the same and  then immediately activated the internet broadband connection. After expiry of 6 months, complainant made payment of Rs.7, 236/- for the next 6 months. Complainant utilized the broadband connection for two months without any interruption.

5.     On 28.07.2017 complainant’s  neighbour  CX box connection was disconnected.   As a result complainant broadband connection was also got disconnected  with effect from 30.03.2017.  OP got in touch with the complainant to apprise him of situation and informed him if permission to install CX box is not given  then his inter- net connection would got disrupted.   Disconnection of the CX box by the complainant’s neighbor, had a direct bearing on the complainant’s internet connection is evident from the complainant’s usage details for the month of Feb, March and April 2017.  Disconnection was solely on account of not being accorded permission to set up the CX box in the house of complainant. The network engineers also informed the complainant that in case he does not wish to set up the CX box he could opt for installation of GX box.  Complainant denied to opt the offer of OP. 

6.     OP is even now ready and willing  to install the CX box and provide the internet broad band connection to the complainant.  If he don’t desire to get re connection of broad band service OP is ready and willing to refund a sum of Rs.4,712/- which is standing to his credit, and the complainant  is not entitled to any other relief.

7.     Further OP has  submitted  that clause 14 of CAF  provides  that the OP shall  not be liable to the subscriber in any manner whatsoever for any costs or damages that may arise directly or indirectly on account of using the services provided by the OP including  any loss of business.  Hence it is clear  that the complaint is filed with the sole intention to damage the OP’s reputation and has failed to prove the deficiency of service .  Hence OP prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

8.      In order to prove the case, the complainant  and OP filed their  affidavit evidence reiterating the contents of the complaint and the version respectively.  Perused the documents produced by the complainant and O.Ps. Heard the arguments.

9.      On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence of the complainant and O.Ps, the following points arise for our consideration:-

                        1)   Whether the Complainant has proved

      deficiency in service on the part of the

                      Opposite Parties?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

10.   Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (1) and (2):  In the Negative  

                                       For the following:-

REASONS

11.   On  perusal of the complaint, version , evidence and documents of both side it is clear that   complainant is a subscriber of OP since from 20.06.2016 and  second time he renewed the service on 01.02.2017 for six month package with one month free service  i.e. ACT Blaze  6m+1M FT by paying subscription of Rs.7,240/-.  Before signing the CAF, he read all the terms and conditions and after agreeing to the same he accepted the service.  complainant used broad band service for  2 months during renewed period  without any disturbance.

12.   Complainant’s main allegation is that the out break problem began after using service for two months and his  case is that in the month of march 2017   faced trouble with respect to  internet connectivity, despite repeated requests OP did not fix the issues,  Further he alleged that connection was deactivated permanently on 1.4.2017 and also he alleged that he was issued a  notice terminating  from the  employment with whom he was  employed since he could not work on the  project due to poor internet connection/ deactivation of service.   The said allegations do not hold substance as he  has not produced any document to show that there was a poor internet connection.  Even if  assuming so, here again question stands before us that if really he had a unresolved problem with internet connection, why he had renewed the service  for next 6 months  with OP company, such act,   draw the inference against the complainant and complainant himself  must answer  this  question.     

13.   After going through   correspondence between the parties, we have observed that complainant is a subscriber of OP and  whenever  he raised the issue,  the OP responded immediately and  resolved the issue.  Further it is also observed that, from the day the complainant  become subscriber to the OP company,  OP  deputed a technical team  to complainant premises to set up the CX box.   The technicians requested complainant to show the  place  to set up the  CX box in his house,   Complainant  did not accord   permission to  install CX box even though  there is obligation on him to give permission as per the CAF.  It was also informed that if his neighbor disconnected his internet connection, the CX box  would be removed from that premises and would have to install  in the premises of complainant.

14.   After putting this condition only connection was activated on 18.6.2016.  Which he enjoyed without any interruption.  There is no malice behind the disconnection of broad band service.   The reason for the same  is that  the power supply from the neighbor’s house to CX box was cut off  which connection runs to complainant’s house. Hence connection was disconnected with effect from 30.03.2017. Annexure-F email correspondence dt.29.03.2017   clearly revels that when  OP  spoke with the complainant, the complainant said that, he is not ready to give permission for CX Box as his owner is not agreeing  to install the same at the premises and as there is  no alternative CX box  nearby,  hence disconnected and TT closed.    The fact that disconnection of CX box by the complainant’s neighbor  had a direct bearing on the complainant’s internet  connection is evident  from the complainant’s usage details for the months of February, March and April 2017.  Disconnection was made solely on account of not being accorded  permission to set up the CX box in the house,   despite being informed of the same complainant did not allow the OP to  install the equipment. The clause in the CAF also binds on the complainant to provide place to install CX box which reads as follows:

          2.SERVICE

• ACT provides its service  via fiber Optic cables which requires us to install and power  CX (Customer Switch) at my premises.  I accept this requirement and hereby accord the permission for installing this CX box  and give power for the same.  If required by ACT , so that internet services may be installed and commissioned.  The  subscriber is also responsible  to provide all access to equipment necessary to access the services.  As the subsequent services manuals/packages/booklets etc.  issued by ACT from time to time shall be binding on the subscriber.

• ACT reserves  the right modify and amend these terms and conditions in part or full and the amended one, as notified by ACT  in its website www.actv.in.shall be binding on the subscriber.

• The subscriber shall provide valid proof of address and proof of identity as per direction issued by DOT from time to time to subscribe the ACT services and as and when required by ACT.

15.   On bare reading of the clause and the circumstantial evidence complement each other and same are forces us to draw inference against Complainant. Hence OP cannot be held liable for the complainant’s in action in providing place to install the CX box.

16.   Further, the allegation of complainant that he lost his job due to non-providing internet access  is not supported by documentary evidence.  It is well settled principles of law that the complainant has to prove loss or damage in order to obtain compensation.  In the  absence  of there being any proof of actual loss or damage cussed by the OP complainant cannot seek compensation by stating an illogic figure and there is no deficiency of service on the part of Ops.

17.   However, Op himself admitted in their version and written arguments that complainant is not entitled  to any refund except Rs.4712 for the non-usage of internet between April to August  2017.  Considering the  admission given by the OP  in respect of refund of amount for the period of unused service, the complainant is entitled to get amount proportionally out of the total sum paid for  the rest of the  period of service. Hence we have assessed the same and it arrives to approximately Rs.4,827/-.  Thus Ops are liable to refund the said sum to the complainant.  Accordingly we answer POINT NO. 1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The Complaint is hereby dismissed with cost.
2. Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,827/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the complainant from the date of disconnection of broad band service.
3. Ops are hereby directed to comply the above order at within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be destroyed as per the C.P. Act and Rules thereon.

       (Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 26^th AUGUST 2019)

           MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1 : Copy of the email correspondences.

Doc.No.2: Copy of Register post to physical address..

Doc.No.3: Copy of the Track Consignment.

Doc.No.4: Copy of the Notice letter from company..

Doc.No.5: Copy of other documents of Act.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Suresh Babu CN Deputy General Manager- Legal of OP 1 & 2.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the license agreement issued by the  

            Department of Telecommunication.

Ex R2: Copy of CAF containing the signature of the

             complainant.

Ex R3: Copy of print out of the Invoice.

Ex R4: Copy of the complainant’s neighbor’s CAF.

Ex R5: Copy of Print out of the invoice of the period   

            18.1.2017 and 17.08.2017.

Ex R6:Copy of the system generated screen shot from the

          CRM Tool.

Ex R7: Copy of print out of the complainant’s customer

            usage details for the months of Feb, March and  

            April 2017.

Ex R8: Copy of the Quality of Services Regulation, 2006.

Ex R9: Copy of the Explanatory memorandum appended

            to the Quality of Services Regulation, 2006.

    MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

A*