Hemen Aggarwal filed a consumer case on 15 Sep 2022 against Deputy General Manager (PM-CM)/CFA, O/o CGMT, BSNL in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/350/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 21 Sep 2022.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/350/2020
Hemen Aggarwal - Complainant(s)
Versus
Deputy General Manager (PM-CM)/CFA, O/o CGMT, BSNL - Opp.Party(s)
In Person
15 Sep 2022
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
U.T. CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No.
:
CC/350/2020
Date of Institution
:
07/09/2020
Date of Decision
:
15/09/2022
Hemen Aggarwal S/o Shri Rajeshwar Aggarwal, aged 52 years, r/o #696 FF, Cassia, Omaxe Phase-3, New Chandigarh, Punjab-160014.
Manager, Gauravi Solutions India, Plot No.991, Industrial Area Phase-2, Chandigarh.
… Opposite Parties
CORAM :
SURJEET KAUR
PRESIDING MEMBER
SURESH KUMAR SARDANA
MEMBER
ARGUED BY
:
Sh.Dashim Garg, Counsel for complainant.
:
Sh.D.R.Sharma, Counsel for OP No.1 & 2.
:
OP No.3 ex-parte.
Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member
Averments are that the complainant paid security of Rs.2800/- for broadband router (ONT) and Rs.490/- as advance rental security to BSNL through OP No.3 on 22.02.2020. Rental security of Rs.490/- was paid as per the plan selected of 200GB per month @ 50MBPS speed (Annexure C-1). As per complainant, OP No.3 promised that the connection will be fully installed and made operational within 7 days time from the date of payment of security i.e. 22.02.2020. The OP No.3 was not able to fulfill the promise in the given time. The complainant received a bill of Rs.40/- dated 04.03.2020 on email for the period of 28.02.2020 to 29.02.2020. The connection was not installed yet (Annexure C-3). Finally on 22.03.2020 complainant told OP No.3 that he does not need the connection anymore as complainant got broadband connection installed of some other service provider. The complainant had served upon the OPs a legal notice on 02.07.2020 (Annexure C-5). Alleging that the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint. As per them, in the present case, the advance payment as ONT security charges made by customer/complainant of Rs.2800/- had already been refunded to the complainant from OP No.3 side and the process for refund of remaining payment of Rs.490/- to the complainant is in process and which will be refunded to the customer at the earliest. It is submitted that OPs is not charging any bill amount(s) from the customer and promised to waive-off all the charges because customer did not use any services in this case. As per information available with OP No.1 & 2 it is clarified that the technician of OP No.3 informed the customer that due to lockdown situation the import of ONT and supply of ONT was not possible for distributor due to lockdown. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OP No.1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 14.12.2020.
Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
On perusal of the rejoinder of the complainant, it is observed that an amount of Rs.2800/- towards security fee charged and an amount of Rs.490/- towards other charges was refunded by the OPs, after filing of this complaint. Now only the issue is pending with regard to issue of notice by the OPs for recovery of outstanding bills and determination of compensation payable towards harassment meted to the complainant.
With regard to the pending bills and issue of notice, it is observed from the affidavit of Sh.Joginder Singh, aged 52 years working as AGM (Legal), O/o GMTD, BSNL, Sector 34, Chandigarh, that notice has been issued from the Accounts Branch inadvertently. After verifying the facts the complainant has been informed that there is nothing due and the matter has been settled vide letter dated 05.02.2022. In support of its contention as Annexure R-2 is annexed.
Significantly, OP No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Hence in view of above discussion, we are of the concerted view that undue harassment was meted to the complainant and no service was provided to him inspite of retaining Rs.3290/- for a period of 8 months illegally. The complainant was made to run from pillar to post and finally dragged to this Commission for redressal of his grievance, which has caused him mental agony & harassment.
In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-
to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment.
to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Sd/-
Sd/-
15/09/2022
[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
[Surjeet Kaur]
Ls
Member
Presiding Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.