Complainant Sukhdev Raj through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite parties be directed not to make any type of demand of Rs.3630/- from him and to withdraw his illegal threat to recover the same from him. Complainant has further claimed compensation on account mental as well as physical harassment suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties including Rs.95,000/- as litigation expenses, all in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is permanent resident of address mentioned in the head note of the complaint and is a law abiding and peace loving citizen and commands considerable respect in the area since he is retired as Lt. Col. from Indian Army. It was pleaded that complainant was availing the facility of Net Connection from opposite party No.1 in mid of year 2015 for his personal use at his home bearing connection No. DS LS 186320 and the above said connection was used by him till 30.11.2015 and after that it was disconnected by him after depositing the entire bill amount vide receipt No.1083633 and the same was disconnected by opposite party vide disconnection/retention form bearing No.8148 on 30.11.2015 and in this way complainant was hiring the services of the opposite parties and as such he is their consumer. It was further pleaded that an illegal oral demand of Rs.3630/- has been raised by the opposite parties from the complainant and threatened him that if he will not deposit the above said amount then he will face dire consequences whereas a certificate regarding the disconnection of the said Net connection was also issued by the opposite parties. It was also pleaded that due to this illegal act of the opposite parties complainant had suffered huge monetary loss and also suffered mental as well as physical harassment, hence this complaint.
- Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form and as such the same is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties and the same is filed by the complainant with malafide intention to harass the opposite parties; that legally complaint is not maintainable as the name of connect broadband in the present complaint as opposite parties is a Brand of Quadrant Televentures Ltd. who is having its corporate office at Mohali and Franchisee was appointed by the Company at Gurdaspur who is working for the Company under the name and style Sai Baba Murad Shah Ji Communication and as such present complaint is abuse of process of law; that complainant filed the present complaint to get undue advantage from the opposite parties; that no such demand of Rs.3630/- had been raised by the opposite parties from the complainant; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that complainant had not come with clean hands and no detail had been provided by the complainant regarding alleged demand of Rs.3630/-. On merits, it was admitted that connection was installed in the premises of the complainant but it was denied that the same was provided by the opposite parties as the above named opposite parties connect broadband in the present complaint is a brand name of Company Quadrant Televentures Ltd. and connect broadband is not having independent entity and opposite party No.1 is Franchisee of the above said Company who is working for Company in the area of Gurdaspur under the above named and style i.e. Sai Baba Murad Shah Ji Communication. It was admitted that above said connection was disconnected from the premises of the complainant. It was denied that oral demand of Rs.3630/- had been raised from the complainant and he was threatened by them. It was stated that complainant himself was not clear who had demanded the alleged amount from him and as per the record of the Company no due towards him. It was stated that after receiving the summons of this Hon’ble Forum officials of the Company approached the complainant and informed him there was no due in his account and No Due Certificate was also issued in his favour but complainant with malafide intention refused to accept the requests of the official of the opposite parties. It was further stated that connect broadband is the brand name of the above named Company who is not having its own office at Gurdaspur. All the averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
4. Complainant had tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ravinder Singh attorney holder Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.
6. We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had been the holder of internet consumer A/c # DS LS 186320 and the present dispute prompted at his being in receipt of an oral consumption demand of Rs.3,630/- after he had closed his A/c with the OP service providers on 30.11.2015. The complainant has duly proved the surrender of his Connection and closure of his A/c vide the Receipts exhibited here as: Ex.C2 (Disconnection/ Retention Form) & Ex.C3 (Bill Payment Receipt) but has further deposed in his affidavit (Ex.C1) as to how he was rudely harassed by the OP’s representatives over his Cell through the telephone Calls and Short Messages etc to deposit the arbitrary figure of Rs.3,630/- that was duly conveyed and also made to be heard at the OP’s ‘call centre’ at Pathankot that the OP service providers have failed to rebut (the arbitrary demand of Rs.3,630/-) with some cogent evidence.
7. We further find that the OP Corporation in its written reply and also in its Affidavit Ex.OP1 has duly deposed of its having made the offer of post-incident ‘No Dues Certificate’ to the complainant and that itself proves the infringement of his consumer rights; but without having provided any reason (logical purpose) and/or details of the arbitrarily alleged ‘arrears’ and that establishes ‘unfair trade practice’ coupled with ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP service providers raking them up for an ‘adverse’ statutory award under the applicable statute. Moreover, the impugned demand as put forth upon the complainant for payment of the arbitrary amount by the opposite party service providers has been admittedly not a matter of routine and the same has not even been proved to be in accordance with the legally accrued amounts as per its Sales/Distribution Policy and the Rules & Regulations etc framed, there under.
- In the light of the all above, we find that the OP service providers have indeed infringed the consumer rights of one respectable and Senior Ex-Army Officer consumer and thus partly allowing the present complaint we ORDER the opposite party service providers to withdraw the impugned ‘demand’ in writing besides to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience caused and Rs.3000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant but within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the present orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the complaint till actual payment.
- Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
SEPT. 26, 2016 Member.
*YP*
