ankurraheja
Newbie
Thanks for the support friends... finally here is the good news... I won the case... here is the extract from consumer case against SIFY pronounced on 18 October 2006:
"It has been held that concealing hidden conditions and not redressing the grievances of the complainant who made complaints with regard to poor customer service on number of occassions, in our considered opinion, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and indulging in to Unfair Trade Practice.
We, therefore, direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs 1,200/-, paid for two months by the complainant along with compensation to the tune of Rs 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and further, pay a sum of Rs 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.”
The order makes the mention of following hidden conditions before the above para:
1. Reduction of speed to 14 Kbps after a download of 750 MB of data in the month (2004)
2. If the customer downloads more than 150 MB in a day, he is penalized in the form of reduction of package by one day (2005)
"Both the above conditions are not brought to the notice of the customer at the time of entering in to the contract.
Court has also held that Opposite Party has failed to provide minimum speed of 256 Kbps as per the definition of BroadBand as laid down by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India."
Though I never claimed that explicitly… but the whole case has been interpreted from this point of view by Hornorable court. That implies that not complying with TRAI definition also resulted in ‘deficiency in service.
Last case summary filed in court available at: http://www.sifycase.org
"It has been held that concealing hidden conditions and not redressing the grievances of the complainant who made complaints with regard to poor customer service on number of occassions, in our considered opinion, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and indulging in to Unfair Trade Practice.
We, therefore, direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs 1,200/-, paid for two months by the complainant along with compensation to the tune of Rs 5,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant and further, pay a sum of Rs 2,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.”
The order makes the mention of following hidden conditions before the above para:
1. Reduction of speed to 14 Kbps after a download of 750 MB of data in the month (2004)
2. If the customer downloads more than 150 MB in a day, he is penalized in the form of reduction of package by one day (2005)
"Both the above conditions are not brought to the notice of the customer at the time of entering in to the contract.
Court has also held that Opposite Party has failed to provide minimum speed of 256 Kbps as per the definition of BroadBand as laid down by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India."
Though I never claimed that explicitly… but the whole case has been interpreted from this point of view by Hornorable court. That implies that not complying with TRAI definition also resulted in ‘deficiency in service.
Last case summary filed in court available at: http://www.sifycase.org
