Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/37/2011

Bhagwan Satya Sai Educational - Complainant(s)

Versus

Glide Sub Infotech, - Opp.Party(s)

None

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                                                          Complaint No. 37 of 2011      

                                                                                          Date of institution: 18.01.2011

                                                                                          Date of decision: 27.01.2017

 

Bhagwan Satya Sai Educational Trust, village Rajpura, District Yamuna Nagar through its President  Shri Sanjiv Kumar Aggarwal.

 

…Complainant.

                                    Versus

Glide Sab Infotech ( A division of Sub Industries Ltd. ) SCO 30-31, First Floor, Sector 8-C,Madhya Marg, Chandigarh -160009 through its Manager/MD.

                                                                                                        …Respondent.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER

 

Present:           Shri BR Gupta, Advocate for complainant.  

                        Shri S.S. Rampur, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     The present complaint filed by M/s Bhagwan Satya Sai Educational Trust under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the averments that complainant firm hired the internet Connectivity Service from the respondent (hereinabove referred as OP) for its educational institutions at village Rajpura, District Yamuna Nagar and paid a sum of Rs.44,200/- through cheque dated 30.05.2009 towards Hardware and installation. Thereafter, the OP also received a sum of Rs.9000/- from the complainant. The internet connectivity service remained defective from the very beginning and it did not function even for a single day. The complainant continued to make complaint to the OP to provide internet connectivity service, but the OP did not care for the same. The complainant wrote many letters to the OP and approached the officials of the OP time and again and requested them to provide internet connectivity service but all in vain.  The complainant continued to wait for the OP to have internet connectivity service for the month of September, 2010, November, 2010 and December, 2010 and ultimately the complainant availed the internet connectivity service from BSNL by spending a huge amount. Due to the defective Internet Connectivity Service, the complainant suffered a heavy loss to its institution as the complainant could not provide internet service to its students. Lastly it has been prayed that OP be directed to refund its total amount of Rs.53200/- along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

2.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement taking some preliminary objection such as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP; the allegation  made by the complainant are totally false and not tenable; the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer; no resolution of society to file the present complaint or authorization in favour of president has been filed; commercial negotiations were held in May, 2009 between the parties and payment was made in June, 2009 for installing hardware towards its cost of Rs.44,200/-  duly accepted by the complainant. The connection of the internet had been taken for running college and the internet check reports for installation and successful running of internet service were in order. The hardware had been installed on 20.06.2009 and internet services were successfully started on 20.06.2009. The quarterly bill dated 04.08.2009 was raised for Rs.9563/-. Thereafter, college did not get recognized and the complainant requested for temporary disconnection and thereafter temporary disconnection had been made only as per the request of the complainant and thereafter the services had been restarted in 2010 again at the request of the complainant. The date and the interest services had been used but no complaint was ever made. It has been further mentioned that the averments made by the complainant in the complaint are contrary to the record. The OP as a goodwill gesture accepted the request of the complainant and though had arranged all the resources to provide internet services and had arranged bandwidth from other parties, did not seek any compensation and loss to the extent of Rs.9563/- per quarter i.e. August, to March for 8 months. On 30.03.2010, the complainant again requested to restart services as his inspection of authorization of his college was due on 3^rd/4^th April, 2010. Had there been any issue of not proper services, the complainant would not have asked to restart the services after the gap of 8 months. Rather it shows that he was fully satisfied. The services were then restarted by the OP to the complainant at his request and bill of Rs.9000/- was paid for the quarter August to October, 2010. No complaint was ever made by the complainant regarding bad or inadequate services.

3.                     Complainant failed to adduce any evidence despite so many last opportunities as such being last and with cost and ultimately the evidence of the complainant was closed by Court order on dated 22.03.2016 as the case pertains to the year, 2011. However, at the time of filing the complaint, photocopy of proposal for dedicated internet connectivity dated 30.05.2009 complainant company profile has been placed on file as Annexure A.

4.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence, copy of email for regarding temporary connection of internet dated 31.03.2010 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of email dated 31.05.2010 as Annexure R-2, photocopy of email dated 02.04.2010  as Annexure R-3, Photocopy of customer services/ Installation Form as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

5.                     We have heard the counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

6.                     The only grievances of the Complainant/institution is that he hired the services in respect of internet connection Service of the OP in Month of May, 2009 and paid Rs.44200/- through cheque dated 30.05.2009 on account of hardware and installation and further also paid Rs.9000/- i.e. total Rs.53200/- to the  OP (Opposite Party) but he OP failed to provide proper service as internet connectivity service remained defective from the very beginning and did not  function even for a single day despite so many requests hence there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and complainant is entitled to get the refund. However, on the other hand, learned counsel for the OP argued at length that firstly the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable as complainant has hired the service of the OP for commercial purpose for its college and further all the allegations mentioned in the complaint has been falsely leveled and the complainant has not filed any evidence to prove its version. The OP has charged only Rs.44200/- on account of installation as well as hardware from the OP and further the OP paid Rs.9000/- on account of bill for one quarter dated 04.08.2009. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that even as a goodwill gesture the OP did not seek any compensation and loss to the extent of Rs.9563/- per quarter i.e. from August, 2009 to March, 2010 i.e. for 08 month as the complainant again requested to restart the service on 30.03.2010 due to inspection of his college on 3^rd/4^th April, 2010. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that a false complaint has been filed just to extract the money to OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.                     After hearing counsel for both the parties and going through the complaint and documents placed on the file by the complainant we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as the complainant has totally failed to place on file any documentary evidence vide which he ever lodged or registered any complaint with the OP. Further, it is also admitted case of the complaint that he had paid Rs.44,200/- on account of installation as well as hardware and it is not the case of the complainant that the OP has not installed the hardware properly and there was any defect.

8.                     We have gone through the complaint of the complainant but not a single iota of word have been disclosed in the complaint by the complainant that what was to be provided to the complainant (against the amount of Rs.44,200/-) and the same was not provided by the OP, due to the which complainant is entitled to get the refund of the same. On the other angle also, complainant hired the service of the OP for its institution i.e. meaning thereby that for commercial purpose and not an iota of word has been mentioned that complainant was running its institution for earning his livelihood. On this account also the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable.

9.                     Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, the complaint of the complainant is any devoid of merit and also not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open Court:

Dated: 27.01.2017.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT, DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

                                                                               

                                                                         (S.C.SHARMA ) 

                                                                         MEMBER.