Sify Broadband To Be Sued By Its Subscriber

[abhay 0]

SIFY broadband to be SUED

suscribers Name: Ankur Raheja

suscribers Residence: New Delhi

suscribers Prof: Company Secretary

now heres the exact senario in words of mr ankur

I have almost prepared the case. The facts basically include the harassment caused by SIFY. The same thing as Prashant had mentioned on http://sifybroadband.techwhack.com, they also forced me to format the computer in the beginning, though the speed was reduced delibrately by SIFY due to that additional condition.

Plus they had made false promises regarding speed at the time of installation.

Following is the list of relief, I am asking for in addition to compensation,… if you have some other additional point, please post it in comments…

1. To disclose the additional condition preferably as an advertisement in newspaper for the existing customers that the unlimited pack, is subject to additional condition. Plus also disclose: IP provided is unstatic.

2. To remove the word “Broadband” from their service name. As it does not satisfy the definition of BroadBand laid down by Telephone Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

3. Plus, an injunction against SIFY from the use of word “Shared”, as they don’t give a connection that is really shared throughout. And for any complaints they take shelter behind these words.

4. To review whether they can classify these packges, which are subject to conditions, as Unlimited.

5. To restrict them from implementing the new Client, wherein a person is forced to install MaCfee AntiVirus and uninstall any other already installed Antivirus.

6. The LCO must be fined and ordered to remove the UNLIMTED connections, provided by him to offices for commercial purposes, which is unnecessary burden for residential users, as their speed is shared.

7. They must be ordered to maintain a system in which they can provide a STATIC IP, else they must be held responsible under Section 66 of IT Act, 2000 and fined.

Point 7 explanation: Section 66 relates to Hacking of computers, which provides for fine upto 2 lacs or 3 yrs imprisonment, this has been included bacause there are lot of hacking attempts from SIFY network, which are detected by Firewall, but the culprit cannot be caught as IP is un-static.

Anybody, who is from Delhi can join in, and claim there compensation separately. It would help in making the case not only strong but also increase the chances of a win. Which, ofcourse, is what every SIFY customer is hoping for

i too support the highlighted points above

i think we should appriciate his move and cheer him up coz he had the guts to stand up and fight for our FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO BROADBAND

more info about him avaliable here :-

http://www.ankurraheja.com/

http://sify-broadband.sushubh.com/

way to go buddy! heres a from my side!

[Harshad 1]

I am an ex Sify "broadband" subscriber and having been disgusted with their service, have turned to Reliance. I too give join this struggle as an aggrieved customer of such cheap cheats like them ....

Hats off to Ankur.

[linuxguy 0]

Hey, this case is pretty old. I think the court has already given the verdict back in May 2005!

[abhay 0]

Hey, this case is pretty old. I think the court has already given the verdict back in May 2005!

48579[/snapback]

huh! and leave us in suspense! man tell us what was the verdict given by d court, dint knew this was a old case

[linuxguy 0]

read it on his blog. I think the court gave an exparte verdict and ordered Sify to change its ads to reflect the limits it imposed. Also it made Sify classify their plans differently (it was classifying 64K, 96K, 128K as BB) and made them pay a few thousand bucks in compensation. But i am NOT sure of this verdict...

[ankurraheja 0]

Thanks for the support friends !

There has been no such decision.... but the court said we have no jurisdiction to entertain the matter and I should approach TRAI. And therefore dismissed the matter. So now case is with Delhi State Commission in the form of appeal 'coz....

On 05 July: TRAI chairman Mr Pradeep Baijal said: “Consumer complaints are not in the purview of the Trai Act. A district consumer forum looks after such complaints….. consumer-related directives by Trai are intended to help the district consumer forums. People can get justice quickly from consumer forums. So we have decided to come out with more regulations and directives for consumers.

Read more here:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050707/asp/...ory_4959104.asp

Secondly, it was also mentioned in the judgement at the end --> expert evidence is missing in the case... whose reply lies in National Commission decision in the case of

"M/S Scooter India Limited & Anr V. Madhabananda Mohanty & Ors."

--> "It is always not necessary for the consumers to give expert testimony, though if he does so it will add weight to the complaint."

And in any case enough material was provided, so that correct decision can be announced. Anyway, let's hope for the best

[abhay 0]

hey ankur let me be the first one to welcome you to our forums

and yes we all support for ur initiative many more like you could follow and show these crappy ISP's the power of consumers

u are a eg setter buddy

hey guys dont u think he should be given seperate title in the forum newb is wayy tooo small just a suggestion though

Edited December 5, 2005 by abhay

[amtrag 20]

I also welcome you to this forum Ankur.

....hey guys dont u think he should be given seperate title in the forum newb is wayy tooo small  just a suggestion  though 

49311[/snapback]

Abhay: I second your suggestion.

[linuxguy 0]

how long before you get the decision?

[ankurraheja 0]

how long before you get the decision?

49463[/snapback]

I filed the case in November 2004 (error rectified) and it came up for the first hearing in Jan 2005.

And last hearing, I think, was in May 2005 and decision was given after two months in July 2005.

So it took total of 5 months in court, out of total 9 months.

Normally, a consumer case takes around one year on an average, which is far less than a civil case filed in other court.

I also have a case against Reliance Infocomm, thats why registered here, so to have some points from other related cases, which are posted on the forums and are very helpful

My case includes billing complaints plus I also challenged "DhiruBhai Pioneer Offer". I will share the facts and points... in few days time under appropriate category.

Edited December 24, 2005 by ankurraheja

[rEdshiFt 1]

Good to see pro-active;) members in the board, Welcome Ankur

[abhay 0]

what exatly is the problem with RELAINCE ??

[deeraj 0]

http://ankurraheja.com/weblog/?p=96 might help you.

reliance is sued by ankurraheja.

hats off to ankur

[linuxguy 0]

I filed the case in November 2005 and it came up for the first hearing in Jan 2005.

If you filed the case in Nov. 2005 how did it come up for hearing in Jan 2005

[abhay 0]

he means JAN 2005

what a stupid ? to ask! bhawanoo ko samjho

Edited December 12, 2005 by abhay

[ankurraheja 0]

he means JAN 2005

what a stupid ? to ask! bhawanoo ko samjho

"bhawanoo ko samjho"

There are lot of problems with Reliance... from Billing to R-Connect to Dhirubhai Pioneer Offer...

I will be providing more details later... n will be more active here Feb 2006 onwards.

[Arun 795]

Sure, glad to have you over here !

[ankurraheja 0]

Thanks for the support friends... finally here is the good news... I won the case... here is the extract from consumer case no 1501/04: "Ankur Raheja V. SIfy Ltd and others" pronounced on 18 October 2006:

It has been held that "concealing hidden conditions 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.”

The order makes the mention of following hidden conditions before the above para:

1. Reduction of speed to 14 Kbps after a download of 750 MB of data in the month (2004)

2. If the customer downloads more than 150 MB in a day, he is penalized in the form of reduction of package by one day (2005)

“Both the above conditions are not brought to the notice of the customer at the time of entering in to the contract.”

“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….”

Though I never claimed that explicitly… but the whole case has been interpreted from this point of view by Hornorable court. That implies that not complying with TRAI definition also resulted in ‘deficiency in service’.

Last case summary filed in court available at: http://www.sifycase.org

Edited November 9, 2006 by ankurraheja

[tanveer 59]

Many congratulations buddy.people like you give hope to all of us.

[ankurraheja 0]

Thanks a lot...

I will be glad if it helps other consumers too....

[ani_meher 42]

Congrats buddy! really takes a man to go to court and fight all the way!

[Dr.Gagan 17]

Hats Of Ankur keep it up......

Soham

[sanket55555 0]

great effort buddy,

this is encouraging

[anujit 0]

Well done man!!! Well done!!!

But I cant believe those phuckers!!! 14kpbs speed if you download more than 750MB. The nerve!!!!

[abhay 0]

grooovy ANKUR.. i hope many others will follow, u have set an example for all of us here

Edited November 9, 2006 by abhay