Haryana

Panchkula

CC/115/2020

SUNIL DUTT. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIGITAL CABLE SERVICES. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	115 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	03.03.2020
Date of Decision	:	29.07.2022

 

 

Sunil Dutt, aged 46 years, son of Shri Ram Dhari, resident of House No.1224-F, Sector-11, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Digital Cable Services, SCO No.45, First Floor, Sector-4, Panchkula through its authorized signatory.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

 

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Punita Attri,  Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP already ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2020.

                       

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant intends to install a cable connection and accordingly, the complainant inquired about the same from the OP and it was  disclosed that for installation of the cable connection, the complainant had to pay security amount of Rs.1450/- for setup box and the same will be refunded as and when the complainant return the setup box and further the monthly subscription charges of the connection is Rs.300/- which is to be paid in advance. The OP further disclosed that the prompt services will be given in case of any disturbance in the connection. On the believing the version of the OP, the complainant had agreed to get the installation of  cable connection from the OP and accordingly, paid the security amount of the setup box besides the monthly subscription amount of Rs.300/- and accordingly, the OP installed cable connection vide consumer no.C41000230 at the residence of the complainant on 26.05.2015. Since the very inception of the installation of the cable connection by the OP, the experience of the complainant was very bad, as soon after the installation of the said cable connection most of the time it remained out of order and after repeated called and visits the OP used to make the said connection in order. Also, the officials of the OP used to visit the house of the complainant as per their convenience and there is no date or week fixed for receiving the payment. Due to vacation, the complainant and his family members visited their native village during the second week of June, 2019 and had returned on 01.07.2019. Thereafter, on 05^th of July, 2019, the Ops disconnected the cable connection without prior intimation of the complainant. Thereafter,  the complainant visited the OP and requested to re-store the cable connection but OP failed to restore the cable connection of the complainant. Thereafter, she time and again visited the OP but of no use, rather the OP asked to her to clear the arrears. The complainant agreed to deposit the charges for the month of June, 2019 & August, 2019 but the Op demanded the payment of July, 2019 but she refused for the same and requested to refund the security amount but the OP put off the matter on one pretext to the other or the other. After waiting sufficiently, she again visited the office of the OP in the month of February, 2020 and this time the OP totally refused to refund the security charges on false pretexts. Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental agony, harassment and financially; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through process server, which was received back served but none has appeared on behalf of the OP and it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 27.11.2020.          

3.             To prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file including arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             During the arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint and prayed for refund of Rs.1,450/- with interest and compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.51000/- litigations charges alleging the lapse and deficiency  on the part of the Op  while rendering services to the complainant.

6.             The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite services of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2020 respectively and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             Evidently, a sum of Rs.1,400/- was deposited by the complainant as security with the OP vide receipt dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure C-1), in addition monthly charges @290/300/320 vide several receipts. The main deficiency attributed to the OP is that the cable connection in question was disconnected on 05.07.2019 without any notice and knowledge of the complainant. It is unrebutted contention of the complainant that he along with his family had gone to his native village on 12.06.2019 and returned back on 01.07.2019. It is further unrebutted contentions of the complainant that his request for restoration of the cable connection was declined by the OP while insisting upon the prior payment of monthly charges for the month of June, July and August 2019 whereas the complainant did not avail the cable services of the OP in the month of July as the same was disconnected on 05.07.2019. Therefore, the act on the part of the OP asking the complainant to make the payment on account of the monthly charges for the month of June and July 2019 was neither correct nor justified. Further, we find the OP deficient in not providing any opportunity to the complainant before disconnecting the cable connection in question. In view of the fact that there is no rebuttal and denial of the assertions and contentions of the complainant, we have no option except to conclude that the OP had been deficient while rendering services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

8.             Coming to the relief, it is found that a sum of Rs.1,400/- was paid by the complainant towards the security amount  in lieu of  the setup box.  Since, the complainant had not paid the monthly charges qua the use of cable connection for the month of June, 2019 as well as July, 2019; hence a sum of Rs.300+300=Rs.600/- is liable to be deducted out of the security amount and thus, the complainant is entitled to the refund of amount of Rs.1,400-600=Rs.800/-.

9.             As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1.     To pay a sum of Rs.800/- to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing     of the complaint till its realization subject to return of set-up box to OP. 
2.     To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.500/- on account of       mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation        charges to the complainant.

10.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

 

Announced on:29.07.2022

 

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal

                Member                     Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                            Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini

                                               Member

 

 

C.C. No.115 of 2020

 

Present:             Ms. Punita Attri, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP already ex-parte vide order dated 27.11.2020.

                       

                       

                        Written arguments filed by the complainant. Arguments heard. Vide a separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OP with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt. 29.07.2022

 

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

              Member                   Member                                  President