DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 151 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 28.12.2018 DATE OF JUDGEMENT: _19.7.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Subhas Sardar, son of late Oswini Sardar of Village & P.O Dhamua, P.S Mograhat, Dist. South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Riya Communication, Village & P.O –Multi, P.S Magrahat, South 24-Parganas.
2. City Cable , J1/15, 4th floor, Plot no.11, Media City, EP Block, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700091.
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
. O.P-2 is a cable operator and O.p-1 is service provider thereof. The complainant paid Rs.1400/- on 8.6.2017 to O.P-1 for installing a brand new set top box in his house to his TV set. But, an old set top box was installed in his house by O.P-1. The new set top box which was purchased for the complainant by the O.P-1 has been provided to another person. Repeated requests of the complainant to O.P-1 to provide a new set top box has ended in fiasco and, therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum with the filing of the instant case , praying for issuing an order directing the O.Ps to provide the new set top box to him or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.1400/- and to pay compensation etc.
None of the O.Ps has turned up to contest the case inspite of service of summons upon them vide postal tract report filed in the record.
The petition of complaint is treated as evidence on affidavit of the complainant vide his petition dated 1.4.2019.
DECISION WITH REASONS
It transpires inthe evidence of the complainant that he paid Rs.1400/- to O.P-1 who is acting as an agent of O.P-2 , for purchasing a brand new set top box for installation in his house.It also transpires in his evidence that the new set top box was purchased by the O.P-1 , but the said box was not installed in the house of the complainant. Instead, O.P-1 has installed an old set top box in the house of the complainant. All these transpire in the evidence of the complainant and all these evidences go uncontroverted and unchallenged. We have nothing to disbelieve the evidence of the complainant and relying upon the evidence of the complainant, we do say that the practice on the part of the cable operator to provide old set top box to the consumer having received full amount for a new set top box is nothing but a deficiency in service as well as a kind of unfair trade practice. Complainant has fallen a prey to that unfair trade practice practiced by the O.P-1 and, therefore, he is deemed entitled to the relief which is provided as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed exparte against the O.Ps with a cost of Rs.2000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to install a brand new set top box in the house of the complainant without taking any further cost from the complainant , within a month of this order, failing which, they will refund Rs.1400/- to the complainant plus a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, within a month thereafter and if this amount of compensation and cost is not paid within that period, the amounts will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
