The court emphasized the importance of paying service charges and highlighted the jurisdiction of the District Forum in entertaining disputes between individual telecom consumers and service providers.

ORDER

Thiru A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Judicial Member - The opposite party is the appellant.

2. The complainant availed a broad band service connection with the opposite party for his telephone number 0462-2582058 under the plan BB Home Combo ULF 1350 which has a speed of 2 mbps up to 15 GB. On 23.7.2010, the complainant had paid Rs. 1850 towards broad band connection charges which includes Rs. 1350 towards monthly charges for broad band connection and Rs. 500 towards instrument and on 31.7.2010, the opposite party provided broad band connection to the complainant. Immediately after getting the connection, the complainant tested the same and confirmed that 520 kb speed was provided and not 2 mbps as provided in the plan. Within a few days of getting connection, he made a personal representation to the opposite party's office and informed that he is not getting 2 mbps as provided under the plan, the opposite party's Engineers visited and checked the complainant's broad band connection and informed that the complainant was getting 800 kbs (8 mbps) at the point of their inspection. At the time of inspection, the complainant repeatedly informed the opposite party's officials about lesser speed provided than assured. Then the opposite party's officials abused the complainant and stated that under his plan he can get only 512 kbs and he may give a complaint any where and nothing can be done against them. Since the complainant's repeated personal demands went in vain, on 6.8.2010 he sent a complaint to the opposite party and by that time the opposite party's officials informed that they will rectify the defects within few days. Since no action was taken by the opposite party once again the complainant sent a complaint to the opposite party on 25.8.2010. In spite of that the complainant did not get right speed as subscribed by him. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite party to return a sum of Rs. 1850 paid by the complainant on 28.7.2010 along with interest for the period when the complainant has not received 2 mbps for his broad band connection and to direct the opposite party not to collect monthly charges and to pay Rs. 75,000 as compensation and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

3. The opposite parties denied the allegations by contending that the entire broad band connection services are depending upon the load and usage of service by all the customers and the speed, will be varied after downloading up to 15 GB in the calendar month and beyond that the speed will be reduced to 512 kbps and in this case also the complainant depending upon the usage the speed was maintained and the complainant having failed to pay the broad band connection usage charges not entitled to file any consumer complaint and thereby the complaint to be dismissed.

4. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials and after an inquiry came to the conclusion that, there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed to pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 3000 as cost.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal by contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without taking into consideration of the opposite party's contention and considering the usage of service the complainant's service was maintained with necessary speed and the complainant has failed to pay service bill charges and thereby as a defaulter he is not entitled to file a consumer complaint and still a balance of Rs. 2499 is pending for payment over the utilization of broad band service through WIFI modem and further as per the rules and regulations, the complainant ought to have approached the Arbitrator to be appointed by the BSNL and thereby the complaint to be dismissed by allowing this appeal.

6. In this appeal, the respondent/complainant remained absent. On the basis of appellant side argument and upon perusing the materials placed bef