ORTEL COMMUNICATIONS LTD Vs. SUDATTA JEEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, a student of Electronics & Telecommunication Engineering obtained an internet connection from the petitioner, which was activated on 01 -10 -2005. At about 2:00 PM on 09 -10 -2005, the modem which the petitioner had supplied to the complainant, exploded, as a result of which the entire computer unit including the UPS, cable LAN and the modem got burnt. The case of the complainant is that at the time the explosion took place the computer system was not in operation and the power had been switched off. On a written complaint being lodged by the complainant a technical team of the petitioner inspected the site of explosion and noticed that there was no damage to any electrical appliance such as refrigerator, air conditioner, etc.. Based upon the report of its technical team the petitioner informed the complainant that the explosion was not on account of any power leakage in the cable network. Being aggrieved from the stand taken by the petitioner the complainant approached the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the appellants on the ground that no power/electrical current passes through the internet cable and there was no sign of high current flowing in the said cable, which otherwise was highly insulated and permitted only the cable signals to pass through it. It was also pointed out that there was no sign of any burn/damage to the cable connectivity port which had been supplied to the complainant. On the request of the complainant the State Commission directed one Ashish Mohanty, Computer Engineer to inspect the site and submit his report. Mr. Mohanty submitted a report, stating therein that the entire computer unit, viz., UPS, LAN cable and cable modem as well as mother board had been burnt and the system had got fully damaged.

(3.) THE complainant engaged the services of one Mr. Saroj Kumar Nayak, Hardware Engineer who claims to have visited the residence of the complainant on 10 -10 -2005 and inspected the damaged computer unit. The report of Mr. Nayak inter alia reads as under: