Judgement: SIFY to pay for Unfair trade practices
Ankur Raheja V. SIFY Limited & Others (2004)
at the District Consumer Redressal Forum V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi – 88
“It has been held that concealing hidden condition 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.”
Further, 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. i.e. Hon’ble Court interpreted the matter from the point of view of TRAI’s definition of Broadband, which lays down criterion of minimum speed of 256 Kbps to be regarded as broadBand. Therefore court held providing 14 Kbps speed instead of 256 Kbps is no service at all.