Telefônica Brasil, better known as Vivo, was ordered to compensate three consumers who were without residential internet for seven days. The 2nd Appeals Panel of the Special Courts of the Federal District understood that “the negligence and contempt of the defendant to solve the case was evident”. The decision was unanimous.
To Justice, the authors of the action reported that, on the afternoon of February 17, there was a total interruption in the internet and telephone service at the residence. As the service was not resumed, they scheduled a technical visit with the company to verify the network problem. However, the technical service would not have been carried out.
Consumers say that after seven days without service and no solution to the problem, they canceled the plan. Since they depended on internet access to work, they went to court asking for compensation.
In its defense, Vivo said that it had not been proven that it had committed any illicit act that could give rise to moral damages. The first instance decision, however, concluded that there was a failure to provide the service and ordered the defendant to pay each of the plaintiffs the amount of R$ 500 as moral damages and to reimburse the expenses with the purchase of an additional package.
The plaintiffs appealed asking for an increase in the fixed amount. When analyzing the resource, the Class observed that the interruption of the internet supply lasted seven days, during which the residents made several contacts with the operator to solve the problem. In the case, according to the collegiate, “the defendant’s contempt” was evident.
“Given the problems and the lack of solution, the appellants were forced to terminate the contract with the defendant and migrate to another operator. Evident, therefore, the negligence, and the contempt of the defendant with the situation faced by the plaintiffs, depriving them of essential service to the work in the home office performed by them”, he recorded.
Thus, the Panel granted the appeal to condemn Vivo to pay the amount of R$ 1,500 to each of the three plaintiffs, as moral damages.