State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
R.Anuradha D/O.R.B.Raju, Hyderabad vs Beam Cable System, Hyderabad, Rep. By ... on 13 November, 2009
FA BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH OF A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.234/2007 AGAINST C.D.No.1112/2004 DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD. Between: R.Anuradha D/o.R.B.Raju Age 35 years, Occ:Interior Designer R/o.3-4-490/A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. Office at Flat No.1, Prembagh Apts., Barkatpura, Hyderabad. Appellant/ Complainant A N D 1. Beam Cable System Having its office at 6-3-249/3/1, Khaleel mansion, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Brijesh S/o.not known to the appellant Age 50 years, Occ:Business, C/o.6-3-249/3/1, Khaleel Mansion, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Respondents/ Opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.Mohan Rao. Counsel for the Respondents:M/s.G.Veena. QUORUM: SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER
AND SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND NINE (Typed to the dictation of Sri K.Satyanand,Honble Member) *** This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum and seeking the relief what she prayed in the complaint.
The facts of the case are briefly as follows:
The opposite parties are admittedly internet service providers. The complainant secured internet connection provided by the opposite parties on 24-6-2004 by making the initial payment through a cheque. On 15-7-2004 while the complainant was using the internet at her residence, suddenly the computer exploded wiping out the whole data, the value of which according to her ran into lakhs. She, therefore, filed this complaint for damages to a tune of Rs.3,51,950/- comprising the actual damage Rs.1,11,950/- towards the value of the computers and accessories and a further amount of Rs.2,40,000/- towards loss of profit on that two projects she was allegedly working on.
The opposite parties filed counter resisting the claim. They ruled out the internet service causing any explosion of the computer. They stated that their service was limited to giving access to internet and it was rather absurd to say that the computer would explode on account of the internet service which according to them was affected through a cable and the leads of the cable would only pump radio frequency signals into the system. Thus they attacked the claim as totally unsustainable.
In support of her case, the complainant filed an affidavit and relied upon Exs.A1 to A6. Opposite parties on the other hand did not file any affidavit or documents.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the District Forum framed the issue directed against the charge of deficiency in service and ultimately gave a finding that there was absolutely no evidence to conclude that the internet service had caused the damage in question. In that process, it dismissed Ex.A3 as devoid of any value as the complainant failed to file any affidavit of the author of Ex.A3. Ultimately the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present appeal placing the whole reliance upon Ex.A3 as proving the internet service having caused the damage in question.
Nobody appeared for the appellant. The counsel for the respondent filed written arguments.
The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:
1) Whether the complainant could successfully prove the deficiency in service alleged against the opposite party.
2) Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
All the exhibits except A3 are documents merely showing the complainants acquisition of the computer system and subscription to the internet service. It is only Ex.A3 that the complainant heavily relied upon to prove that the system was got damaged due to the erratic internet service. What all we find from Ex.A3 in this regard is as follows:
Found Mother Board, speaker etc. to be burnt because of external power source to Mother Board as this mis-hap occurred by using the cable internet. The parts cannot be replaced as per the warranty terms.
Hence the service will be done on paid for all the parts.
On request the repair estimation will be given.
The language of Ex.A3 indicates that it was written by a mechanic engaged by the complainant to effect repairs to the system. He gave his opinion as to why parts could not be replaced as per the warranty. In expressing his opinion, he tried to put the blame on cable internet.
This inspired the complainant to link up the damage with the cable internet service. Cable internet causing explosion of the computer is rather unheard of. If really such a thing had occurred the scanty evidence available in Ex.A3, can hardly prove such kind of mighty allegation. It is incumbent upon the part of the complainant to examine an expert as to how internet service could cause the damage that occurred to her system as the very proposition of internet service causing explosion of the computer defies science as we know. This heavy burden casting on the complainant is not at all discharged. On the other hand, she tried to rely upon a off-the-cuff remark made by a semi skilled mechanic even without his affidavit. The District Forum rightly brushed aside that evidence as utterly inadequate to prove the grievance of the complainant. In other words, the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint.
For the reasons stated above, we do not see any merits in the appeal and the appeal is therefore, dismissed but without costs in the circumstances of the case.
Sd/-MEMBER.
Sd/-MEMBER JM Dt.13-11-2009