A consumer court has ordered an internet service provider to pay Rs50,000 in compensation to a citizen over “deficiency in services”.
Khaleeq Ahmed, a lawyer, filed a complaint in the consumer protection court (South), naming an internet service provider and its associated brand as defendants. Judge Abdul Ahad Memon ruled that the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs50,000 on account of “deficiency in service, inconvenience, and mental agony suffered by him.” He also imposed a fine of Rs5,000 on the defendants to be deposited in the provincial government treasury in accordance with law over their conduct and violation of the consumer rights.
The court directed the defendants to improve their service in all aspects to ensure smooth, uninterrupted and quality provision of the internet. “The record reflects that the complainant remained deprived of the services for which he had been regularly paying consideration to the defendants,” the judge noted in his order.
“The documentary evidence available on record, particularly the complaint history, legal notices exchanged between the parties, and the defendants’ own reply acknowledging restoration of service after a considerable period, establishes that the complainant suffered inconvenience, frustration, and mental agony on account of the deficient and unsatisfactory services rendered by the defendants,” read the order.
“The conduct of the defendants in failing to effectively address the repeated complaints of the complainant amounts to a violation of the consumer’s right to receive services of the quality and standard promised at the time of subscription,” the judge observed.
He said the complainant said that he suffered financial and professional losses due to interruption of internet services; however, no independent documentary evidence has been produced to specifically quantify the alleged monetary loss.
“Therefore, while the claim of actual pecuniary loss cannot be assessed with mathematical precision, the complainant is nevertheless entitled to reasonable compensation for the inconvenience, harassment, mental stress, and deprivation of services suffered by him due to the defendants’ deficiency in service,” the judge added.
