Back
Shimla Consumer Commission Penalizes For Failure To Resolve Persistent Connection Issues
The
in Shimla has delivered a stern verdict regarding service lapses in the telecom sector. Bench members Dr. Baldev Singh and Ms. Nidhi Sharma held
accountable for
"
and
"
following a protracted internet outage that left a consumer without access to critical academic and professional resources.
A Case of Unmet Promises
The dispute originated when the , Smt. Pratima Chauhan, entered into a six-month prepaid internet plan with , paying ₹2,824.92 in . By April, the connection suffered a major disruption. Despite lodging multiple online complaints and receiving assurances from company representatives—including a site visit by a technician who identified a damaged wire—the service remained defunct. The alleged that the promised repairs were never executed, while the service provider repeatedly failed to honor its maintenance commitments.
The Battle of Evidence
In its defense, the service provider argued that the had repeatedly cancelled service requests prematurely and claimed the issues were resolved. The company contended that the consumer remained unreachable during subsequent attempts to fix the technical fault.
However, the Commission found these assertions lacking in substance. The company failed to present the testimony of the specific technicians who were allegedly tasked with the repairs, nor did it offer sufficient technical documentation to substantiate the claim that the connection was functional. The Commission noted that the company’s internal regarding complaint resolution was insufficient to rebut the 's evidence.
Key Judicial Observations
The Court emphasized the placed on service providers when faced with specific allegations of neglect. Pivotal observations included:
-
"The has to prove its plea of defence through some documentary evidence or by way of of technical person, who visited the house of for resolving the issue."
-
"It can safely be presumed that the has failed to resolve the grievance of ."
-
"The through evidence on record has been able to prove the and on the part of ."
The Verdict and Practical Implications
Finding in favor of the , the directed to immediately restore the home internet connection free of cost. Furthermore, the company was ordered to pay a lump sum of ₹10,000 to cover mental harassment, agony, and . The order mandates compliance within 45 days, reinforcing the principle that telecom entities must maintain rigorous service standards and provide verifiable proof when contesting consumer grievances. This ruling serves as a vital reminder to service providers that technical failure does not exempt them from accountability under the .
