BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.74/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 25^th January 2018

Present:       1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT  

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                   

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

    3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                

                                            B.E., LLB., PGDCLP,    - MEMBER

Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, against the opposite party, alleging deficiency in service and seeking a direction to refund Rs.1,465/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards the mental agony and harassment caused due to deficiency in service with other reliefs.
2.     The complainant intended to have broadband connection to her residence deposited a sum of Rs.1,465/- on 28.06.2016 with opposite party, who assured to provide the same within one month from the date of application for the same.  A “Modem” has been provided to connect the computer with the telephone, paid Rs.1,500/- towards the same.  The opposite party failed to provide the broadband connection until 30.08.2016, inspite of repeated demands to provide the same, as such, the complainant returned the “modem” to opposite party office.
3.      Later intended to cancel the broadband connection, wrote letters to opposite party on 30.12.2016. On 04.01.2017, the opposite party refunded the “modem” charges.  The opposite party assured to refund the deposit amount within a months time, but failed.  Thereby, the complainant alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party and filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
4.     The opposite party filed version and submits the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P.Act and also for not exhausted the remedies available under arbitration.
5.     Opposite party admitted the deposit of amount and on cancellation of the connection, at the request of the complainant, a sum of Rs.1,533/- with interest have been debited to complainant’s bank account by the opposite party’s circle office at Bangalore.  Therefore, the allegation of deficiency in service is denied and submits they are not liable to pay any compensation as sought and prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
6.     Both parties lead evidence to establish the facts.  Written arguments filed by both.  Heard the oral submissions.  Perused the material on record and posted for orders.
7.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainant established the deficiency in service by the opposite party, for not refunding the amount deposited towards broadband connection, within the assured time and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
3. To What order?

8.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- In the negative.

Point No.3 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.    Point No.1:- The complainant deposited Rs.1,465/- on 28.06.2016, towards obtaining broadband connection from opposite party within one month from the date of deposit of the amount.  Thereby, the relationship of consumer and the service provider established as per section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act.  Further under section 3 of the C.P.Act, the complaint filed before this Forum is maintainable.  Hence, the  point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
10. Point No.2:- The complainant intending to obtain broadband connection to her residence, deposited Rs.1,465/- towards the same on 28.06.2016.  The opposite party assured to provide the same within 30 days.  The complainant also purchased a modem for a sum of Rs.1,500/-.  Later, the same has been returned and the amount paid has been refunded on 30.12.2016.
11. On failure to provide the broadband connection to the phone, the complainant decided to cancel the connection vide letter dated 30.12.2016.
12. Accordingly, the opposite party processed the request of the complainant and deposited the amount paid by the complainant along with applicable interest to her bank account.
13. The complainant alleged the deficiency in service by opposite party, for not providing the requested connection within the assured time, she suffered mental agony.  Hence, prayed for the reliefs.
14. The opposite party contended that, on deposit of the prescribed amount for the connection, processed the application, through their circle office and were in the process of providing service to the complainant.  But, the complainant unfortunately requested to cancell her request for the connection.  Thereby, the opposite party cancelled the application and arranged for refund of the amount deposited by the complainant.  In the meanwhile, the complainant alleged the deficiency in service and filed this complaint.  As such, contended that, they have not caused any mental agony and deficiency in service towards the complaint. 
15. On perusal of the material on record, we opine that, there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party, as alleged.  As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant is not entitled for any reliefs from opposite party.  Accordingly, the point No.2 is answered in the negative.
16. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 25^th January 2018)