DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 155/17
Shri Brajesh Kumar Mishra
PP 1, Ground Floor, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi- 110092
Vs
- 4D Datacom Private Limited
The Local Cable Operator (Siti Cable Network)
504-505, Guru Ram Das Nagar
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi- 110092
- Siti Network
Registered Office:
Madhu Indistrial Estate
4th Floor, Pandurang Budhakar Marg,
Worli, Mumbai- 400013,
Maharastra
- Siti Cable Network
Through Mr. Sudhir Mongia, Nodal Officer
4th Floor, FC 19, Sec 16 A,
Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh- 201301
….Opponents
Date of Institution: 21.04.2017
Judgment Reserved on: 13.12.2019
Judgment Passed on: 24.12.2019
CORUM:
Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)
Dr. P.N. TIWARI (MEMBER)
Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)
ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by Shri Brajesh Kumar Mishra, the complainant, against 4D Datacom Private Ltd., (OP-1); Mr. V.D. Wadha, CEO (Siti Cable Network), (OP-2) and Siti Network, (OP-3) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Facts necessary for the disposal of present complaint are that the complainant is stated to be availing services of cable TV network from OP-1 vide membership no. 954 for past 3 years. The monthly subscription fees was being paid in advance to OP-1. In the month of January, 2017, there was connectivity issue for which OP-1 was informed but the same was not rectified despite several reminders and requests. Thereafter a complaint was made to the customer care of OP-3, but of no avail. Another complaint dated 15.02.2017 was made through email for which complaint no. 2713375 was issued. The complainant was shocked to know that his connection had been deactivated.
The complainant approached OP-1, where he was asked to make the payment for the month of February 2017. The request for activation was declined by OP-1. The complainant has stated that he had already made payment for the month of January in advance, but his connection was disconnected in the month of January itself and had not been restored till the filing of the present complaint.
Legal Notice dated 25.02.2017 was served upon OPs asking them to restore the services, which was neither replied nor complied with. It has been further stated that OP-1 had charged Rs. 1,500/- as security deposit for set top box, which was refundable. OP-1 instead of refunding the set top box, which the complainant intended to surrender raised a bill for an amount of Rs. 996.66 despite the fact that the connection had been disconnected in the month of February, 2017. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental torture, pain and harassment; Rs. 30,000/- as litigation expenses refund of Rs. 1,500/- the security amount deposited for set top box.
The complainant has annexed the copy of the receipt issued by OP-1, legal notice dated 25.02.2017 alongwith postal receipts and bill for Rs. 996.66 with the complaint.
Reply was filed on behalf of OP-1, where they have taken several objections in their defence such as the complainant had not placed anything on record to prove that he had availed the cable services till January, 2017 and had failed to clear the outstanding bill as he had used the services till 15.02.2017. The cause of action was against OP-2. The connection of the complainant was deactivated on 15.02.2017 due to non payment and at the instructions of the complainant, therefore, no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant. They have submitted that the complainant had not disclosed the date, time and the person to whom the complaint was made. They have denied that the security deposit of Rs. 1,500/- was taken from the complainant on account of set top box, rather Rs. 600/- were charged against the set top box which was refundable in case the set top box returned to OP-1. They have denied rest of the contents of the complaint also.
Rejoinder to the Written Statement of OP-1 was filed by complainant, where he has reaffirmed the averments made in the complaint and denied those of the Written Statement.
OP-2 and OP-3 did not file their written statement despite opportunity and subsequently stopped appearing in the proceedings, hence they were proceeded ex-parte.
Complainant has got examined Shri Brajesh Kumar Mishra, who has deposed on oath the contents of his complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of the last payment receipt as Ex.CW1/1, copy of email dated 15.02.2017 as Ex.CW1/2, Legal Notice of date 25.02.2017 has been exhibited as Ex.CW1/3 and copy of the bill generated by OP-1 is Ex.CW1/4.
OP-1 has got examined Shri Ajay Dhawan, Director of 4D Datacom Pvt. Ltd. He has also reiterated the submissions made in the reply. He has relied upon the complete complaint log sheet (15 pages) from 03.01.2017 to 16.02.2017 and has got them exhibited as Ex.OP1/1. He has stated that the last payment receipt as annexed with the complaint is of 07.01.2017, which implied that the complainant had made payment for the month of January, 2017 and reported the problem on 15.02.2017, he has further submitted that rather the complaint was registered on 16.02.2017 at 12:25:08 PM, which was the second day of disconnection, the complainant did not pay the monthly charges despite demand and finally refused to pay. It was the complainant who had asked for disconnection. Copy of the complaint made by complainant to OP-3 and the action taken thereof is Ex.OP1/2.
He has submitted that OP-1 was incorporated in October, 2015, which falsifies the averment made by the complainant that he had been availing services of OP-1 for past 3 years. Copy of incorporation certificate has been exhibited as Ex.OP1/3. He has further submitted that the bill annexed by complainant for Rs. 996.66 is fake and fabricated. As it was never generated by OP-1 as the account of complainant had been closed so the generation of bill did not arise.
We have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for Complainant and Authorized Representative for OP-1. We have also perused the material placed on record. The contention of the complainant is that OPs were deficient in services and did not refund the security amount of Rs.1,500/-. The complainant has placed on record the receipt i.e. EXCW1/1 issued by OP-1 in lieu of monthly subscription which bears the date 01.07.2016 which has been striked and again 07.01.2017 has been mentioned. However, factum of payment of the monthly subscription for the month of January, 2017 has been admitted by OP-1. It is seen that first time complaint made to OP-2, is an email dated 15.02.2017, whereas the contention of the complainant is that there was problem in connectivity in the month of January, 2017, however, date has not been mentioned by the complainant in the complaint nor in his evidence. The complainant has placed no documentary evidence to show that complaints were made to OP-1, OP-2 and OP-3 in the month of January, 2017. It is only on 15.02.2017, the complainant has first time registered a complaint with OP-2.
During the course of arguments it was admitted by the Authorized Representative of OP-1 that the refundable security deposit for the set top box was Rs.1,500/-. Thus, OP-1 has indulged in deficiency in services by not refunding the security deposit. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint we direct the complainant to return the set top box to OP-1 and thereafter, OP-1 shall refund Rs. 1,500/. The act of OP-1 in non–refund of the security deposit makes complainant entitled to just and equitable compensation of Rs. 1,500/-,inclusive of litigation expenses.
Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.
File be consigned to record room.
(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA) (SUKHDEV SINGH) Member President
