Consumer Court Orders Classic Tech to Pay Rs 250,000 in Internet Service Disruption Case

Dragon Media Correspondent

The Consumer Court has ordered internet service provider Classic Tech to pay Rs 250,000 in a case filed over prolonged internet service disruption, failure to resolve customer complaints and the mental distress allegedly caused to the subscriber. A two-member bench of the Consumer Court delivered the decision on Thursday.

According to the complainant, Shiva Prakash, approximately Rs 6,000 was paid through a banking channel on April 14, 2026, to renew for another year an internet connection registered in the name of Santosh Poudel. However, the internet service reportedly stopped functioning completely from the night of April 22, and repeated attempts to have the problem resolved were unsuccessful.

Shiva Prakash said he repeatedly contacted Classic Tech through its official WhatsApp channel and by telephone. According to his account, technical personnel attributed the disruption to reasons such as the relocation of an electricity pole or cables being cut by another company. He also alleged that different employees responded to calls, kept him on hold for several minutes and sometimes disconnected without resolving the problem.

After failing to obtain a solution from the company, he approached several government bodies, including the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Nepal Telecommunications Authority, Hello Sarkar, the police and the District Administration Office in Bhaktapur. A discussion between the two sides was also held in the presence of Nepal Telecommunications Authority Director Arjun Ghimire in May.

During that discussion, Shiva Prakash said he had been forced to purchase additional mobile data because of the prolonged disruption and had experienced difficulty maintaining regular contact with family members and relatives abroad. He requested Rs 10,000 as a token compensation. According to him, Classic Tech representative Sushil Singh Thapa rejected the request, saying the company had no policy of providing such compensation.

Shiva Prakash also said that although he received emails and messages from government channels indicating that his grievance had been addressed, the internet connection had still not been restored. After his efforts through administrative and regulatory channels failed to produce a resolution, he sought assistance from a consumer rights organization and filed a case at the Consumer Court in Tripureshwor, Kathmandu, seeking Rs 1 million in compensation.

The complaint accused the company and its employees of negligence, unprofessional conduct and failure to properly address a customer’s grievance. It also alleged a violation of the consumer’s statutory right to receive quality services. The complainant further argued that the prolonged disruption affected rights related to information and communication, freedom of expression and the right to live with dignity. These were legal claims presented by the complainant in the case.

Following the ruling, Shiva Prakash said his effort was not solely about money or personal compensation but about encouraging consumers to speak up when their rights are violated. He said an individual complaint can sometimes become a broader voice for many consumers facing similar problems.

The decision has brought renewed attention to the responsibility of service providers to deliver the services for which customers have paid and to address complaints within a reasonable period. However, the full text of the judgment will be necessary to determine precisely whether the Rs 250,000 ordered by the court is legally categorized as a fine, compensation or payment under another heading.