By filling this claim under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 (hereinafter to be called the Act), Raana Ishtiaq who is wife of her authorized agent has maintained that she is a consumer of defendant since long as she availed Telephone (Landline) services; she is enjoying facilities of telephone number 051-5494635; a DSL service was also availed by her on same telephone number; on 23.01.2013 telephone line became out of order and for this claimant made several complaints to defendant including complaints numbers 95 and 47; she also visited personal office of defendant but of no consequence; claimant was using Broadband for study purpose of her son, who is student of BS-CS/IT in Preston University; despite non-provision service at all for whole month defendant issued a bill to claimant asking for Rs. 1460/- which includes Broadband charges too; due to defective services of defendant claimant suffered inconvenience, mental torture and she also born following losses:- a) Study loss of children: Rs. 1,00,000/- b) Legal assistance charges Rs. 10,000/- c) Mantel torment Rs. 1,00,000/- Total Rs. 2,10,000/- In terms of Section 28 (1) of the Act, she served a legal notice to defendant which was not responded. Claimant has made prayer as under: - a) Direct the defendant to restore the telephone number urgently. b) Direct the defendant to waive off the entire billing amount that was issued by the PTCL with effect from 23.01.2013 to date. c) Direct the defendant to pay whole losses of complainant as mentioned in Para 6. d) Award the penalty to the defendant as mentioned in Section 32 of PCPA 2005. e) Any other relief deemed fit for appropriate in the above mentioned circumstances may also be granted.
2. Defendant was summoned through TCS and process server of this Court. Process was served to Mr. Junaid Divisional Engineer but no one came forward to contest this claim. Hence defendant was proceeded ex-parte.
3. Rule 14 (5) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Rules 2009 provide that if defendant fails to appear on the day of hearing the Court may decide the claim ex-parte on the basis of documents available on record.
4. I have heard arguments of Authorized agent.
5. Contents of claim are supported by an affidavit for which there is no rebuttal. Photocopy of legal notice sent to defendant is also part of judicial file and postal receipt shows that it was sent to defendant on 02.02.2013.
6. I have too examined original telephone bill for the month of January-2013 served to claimant. Its photocopy is available on judicial file. Perusal of this document indicates that besides line rent and other nominal charges defendant also asked for payment of PTCL Broadband DSL charges.
7. In view of above it is established that claimant had hired the services of defendant for a consideration hence she is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (c) (2) of the Act, whereas defendant is a Service Provider as defined under Section 2 (k) of the Act.
8. A consumer can reasonably expect that when he/she hires the services against consideration, those must be of some standard. In the case in hand when claimant is charged regularly for use of Broadband/DSL, then it was the duty of defendant to provide qualitative services to claimant. No doubt that there can be some technical issues but if it is so then grievance of a consumer must be redressed within shortest possible time and not taking a month as alleged in this case.
9. In view of above claimant has succeeded to establish her claim.
Coming to question of relief there is no question of legal assistance charges because claim has been filed in person and even notice was sent by claimant herself. Similarly, there is nothing on record showing any detail with reference to loss of study or mental torture. However, to some extent relief of compensation is liable to be granted, although same has not been prayed for.
Claimant is also entitled not to pay DSL charges to defendant for the month of January-2013. It has been admitted before me that facility has also been restored when defendant had received notice from this Court.
10. Therefore, in terms of section 30 (1) of the Act, this Court issues an order to defendant directing it to take following actions within one month form today: -
1. To pay Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) as compensation to claimant due to defective and faulty services.
2. To waive of charges of Rs. 1099/- (one thousand and ninety-nine) for facility of Broadband DSL.
11. File shall be consigned to record room after its due completion. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to defendant through post by Registrar of this Court.