BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.219 of 2015

Date of Instt. 25.05.2015

Date of Decision :26.11.2015

Vivek Jain son of Kuldip Jain, R/o H.No.113, Tower Enclave Ph-3, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Connect Broadband, Connect Care, Office at 188, Model Town Gurudwara Road, Jalandhar through its Manager/authorized person.

2. Quadrant Televentures Limited, Jalandhar Office:- K.M.Stone 8, G.T.Road, Paragpur, Jalandhar-144005 through its authorized person.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Surinder Singh Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.MS Sachdeva Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant is resident of above said address and is an advocate by profession. One employee of opposite party namely Raj Kumar having sale code 39555 came to complainant and purposed for installation of broadband internet connection in the premises of complainant. As per the proposal of employee/representative of opposite party, complainant got ready to get installation of broadband connection at his house, where the office of complainant is also situated. As per the demand of opposite party complainant supplied all the necessary documents and proofs and also gave a cheque of Rs.1100/- as per the demand of opposite party in the name of opposite party No.2. Opposite party assured the complainant that within seven days the connection would be installed in the premises of complainant and opposite party got the said cheque encashed from the bank of complainant on 19.2.2015. Thereafter, complainant approached to the opposite party and also contacted on the mobile No.7696638739 and on 7355565136, number of times and requested for installation of broadband connection but opposite party linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant is an advocate and always in need of internet connection for his profession but due to delay in installation of broadband connection complainant faced many problems. Thereafter complainant requested several times to the officials of opposite party but the officials of opposite party always told to complainant that the broadband connection will be installed on next day but till today opposite party has failed to install the broadband connection even after receipt of payment for the same. Now when complainant again approached to opposite party and requested for the installation of broadband connection then officials of opposite party openly declared that the connection can not be installed. Due to non availability of the internet connection complainant suffered financial loss as well as mental harassment and complainant spent fresh amount on purchase of new connection of Tata Docomo. On such like averments, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant has prayed for damages.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the internet connection has already been connected and the same is being used by the complainant, so on this score alone, this complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. Initially when the internet connection was booked, there was some technical defect and feasibility for the connection to be released, was a problem. In due time, after fulfilling all the formalities and the technicalities, the connection was released 24.8.2015. The connect broadband is not a company and has been wrongly impleaded as opposite party. It is absolutely incorrect that the opposite parties assured the complainant that within seven days the connection would be installed in the premises of the complainant. However, encashment of the cheque is matter of record. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The facts involved in the present case are not much disputed. It is not disputed that complainant applied for broadband connection and gave a cheque of Rs.1100/- to opposite party No.2. In the written reply, the opposite parties have not specifically denied the receipt of cheque or encashment of the same and have pleaded that issuance of cheque is matter of record. They have further pleaded that encashment of cheque is matter of record. It is in the affidavit Ex.CA of the complainant that he gave a cheque of Rs.1100/- as per demand of the opposite party in the name of opposite party No.2 and said cheque was encashed on 19.2.2015. Ex.C1 is application for broadband connection given by the complainant. The present complaint was filed on 21.5.2015 and during pendency of the present complaint the opposite party installed broadband connection on 25.8.2015. Statement of counsel for the complainant in this regard was recorded on 26.8.2015. However, in their written reply, the opposite parties have pleaded that connection was released on 24.8.2015. So the fact remains that connection was released during the pendency of the present complaint after about a delay of about 6 months after receiving the above said cheque and moving of application Ex.C1. The opposite parties have not offered any satisfactory explanation regarding the delay in release of connection. In preliminary objection No.2, the opposite parties have pleaded that initially when the internet connection was booked, there was some technical defect and feasibility for the connection to be released was the problem. In case, there was some technical defect and release of connection was a problem, the opposite parties should not have booked the internet connection of the complainant. The complainant had to file the present complaint before the connection was released. So the inordinate delay in releasing the above said connection to the complainant constitute deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Complainant is only entitled to compensation for deficiency in service and not for loss of business etc.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and complainant is awarded Rs.5000/- as compensation from opposite party No.2 company for delay in giving the connection to him. He is further awarded Rs.2000/- on account of litigation expenses. Compliance be made within one month. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

26.11.2015 Member Member President