State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Reliance Communications Ltd. vs Smt. Chandralekha Roy on 23 October, 2009
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO. : FA/236/2009 DATE OF FILING : 02.07.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 23.10.2009 APPELLANTS Reliance Communications Ltd. Havings its head office at Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400 709 And local office at Reliance House, 34, Chowringhee Road Kolkata-700 071. RESPONDENTS Smt. Chandralekha Roy 98, Christopher Road Brindaban Gardens Building No. 21 Flat No. 4, 2nd Floor Kolkata-700 046. BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY MEMBER : MR. S.COARI FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: In person. : O R D E R :
MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER The present Appeal has been directed against the judgement and order dt. 26.5.09 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 171/2007 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint with a direction upon the Ops to refund Rs. 741.39 to the complainant on account of usage of internet for the period from 13.4.06 to 27.7.06 which was actually used by the hackers along with interest @ 10% and to raise fresh bills for the period from 27.7.06 to 20.8.06 and 27.8.06 to 13.9.06 after deducting 1,703.06 and 2,589.98 respectively from new bills along with a direction to refund of deposit money of Rs. 1,000/- together with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
The complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant/Respondent availed of broadband facilities from the Appellant/Ops in April, 2006. The complainant received usual and normal bills for the months of April, May, June and July, 2006, but on and from August, 2006 the Respondent/Appellant started receiving inflated bills, for which the Respondent made correspondences on a number of occasions with the OP authorities, but with no avail. Thereafter the complainant/Respondent approached the appropriate authority for resolving the matter through mediation, but it also failed. Finding no alternative the complainant had to lodge complaint before the Ld. District Forum below and prayed for redressal.
The Ops contested the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the complaint contending inter alia that the dispute being a billing dispute it can only be resolved as per provisions of Section 7 of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. As the Respondents ID and Password were used from nine different computers, it was not possible on the part of the Ops to identify the names of those computer users.
For the leakage and/or pilferage of users ID and Password it is the Respondent who is responsible and none else and for this, the Appellant/Ops should not be held responsible and no adverse opinion can be formed on the basis of such wild and vague allegation and that the petition of complaint was liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Ld. District Forum after considering the respective parties cases has allowed the petition of complaint in the manner mentioned above.
The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in allowing the petition of complaint in the manner as discussed above.
DECISION WITH REASONS At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that in this case there is no allegation as regards connection failure or any other lacuna in the use of the broadband connection at the instance of the Respondent/Complainant.
The detection of hacking as alleged by the complainant is a complicated procedure. Without the help of technical expert this type of problem cannot be solved and even in some cases the technical experts are at bay in the matter of detection and explaining such pilferage in respect of ID and password of a particular computer. As the matter stands, the Respondent is equally responsible to explain such pilferage of user ID and password. As there is no case of deficiency of service in respect of internet broadband connection, there is no merit in the complainants case as put forward before the Ld. Forum below. From the materials on record it is palpably clear that the controversy raised at the instance of the complainant is a matter involving hyper-technical aspect. Such complicated dispute can only be resolved before the appropriate arbitration forum constituted under the act. Ld. District Forum having failed to appreciate this aspect of the case has arrived at a wrong and improper decision and the same is liable to be set aside. While concluding his submissions the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that a plain reading of the impugned judgement will reveal that the Ld. Forum below has utterly failed to appreciate the actual controversy between the parties and has not considered the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, which is solely applicable in the present case and on this score alone the impugned judgement is liable to be set aside.
We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the Appellant as mentioned above and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and other materials on record and find that in this case it is the specific case of the complainant/Respondent that her computer was hacked by none else than nine unknown users of different computers through Appellants system deficiency, which has resulted in receipt of inflated bills. The complainant promptly brought to the notice of the Ops/Appellant the receipt of the inflated bills, but with no avail and ultimately sought relief before the Ld. Forum below by filing a petition of complaint only when the Ops disclosed their system limitation. The Ops, on the other hand, had tried to put up a case to the effect that hacking of a computer Internet connection is a complicated matter and detection thereof is not easily possible. It was also argued that the appropriate forum for resolving such dispute being arbitration forum and the Respondent having chosen a wrong forum, no relief should have been granted to the Respondent as it has been granted by the Forum below. On perusal of the impugned judgement we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly appreciated respective parties cases from all possible angles. In this aspect we find much substance in the submissions put forward on behalf of the Respondent, according to whom, the provisions of Section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act is applicable to the dispute arising between the Telecom authorities and the service provider and not applicable to individual consumer. If that be the position we think that the Ops cannot wash out its hands by simply taking a plea that the Respondent was equally responsible for hacking of her computer by several outside unknown computer users. In this connection we take note of the fact that at the time of giving connection to the complainant the Appellant/Ops did not make this point clear to the complainant and also even notified after excess consumption, it never bothered to look into the cause thereof and for this, the Ops/Appellant must suffer. So far as it relates to assessment of compensation and refund of money, we think that the Ld. District Forum has taken a proper approach and view save and except, in our opinion, the compensation amount should be reduced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-
only. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Ld. Forum below except the compensation amount as mentioned above. In the result, the Appeal succeeds.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands allowed in part on contest but without any order as to cost, save and except reduction of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The other portion of the impugned judgement remains intact.
MEMBER MEMBER