Haryana

Panchkula

CC/41/2016

SANJEEV KUAMR - Complainant(s)

Versus

GOVIND TELECOM. - Opp.Party(s)

R.S SATHI.

22 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                         

Consumer Complaint No	:	41 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	19.02.2016
Date of Decision	:	22.07.2016

Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh.Trilok Singh, presently residing at 561, 1^st floor, Sector-4, Panchkula.

                                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

1.       Govind Telecom, SCO 451-452, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

2.       Quadrant Televentures Limited, Adalat Road, Aurangabad-431005, Maharashtra.

          Alternate Address of OP No.2

          B-71, Industrial Area, Phase Vii, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali-160055, Punjab.

                                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

              Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

              Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Mr.R.S.Sathi, Adv., for the complainant. 

                             Op No.1 already ex-parte.

Mr.Karun Kumar, Adv., for the Op No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complainant-Sanjeev Kumar has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that after seeing the advertisements of Ops for internet services, the complainant contacted the Ops for internet package of Rs.1,599/- per month and the Ops sent their concerned person to complainant’s house for installation of internet services. The complainant also paid Rs.1,100/- as installation charges (Annexure C-1) and Rs.100/- as miscellaneous charges on 03.09.2015. The Ops assured the complainant that within 2 days, the internet connection would be installed and he could use the internet connection. After 10-12 days from the date of payment, the Ops’ concerned person M.Farooq informed the complainant that they could not provide the internet services to him for which he would get the money refunded within 7 days. The complainant requested the Ops to give a valid reason for not providing him the internet services as he suffered huge loss in his business but to no avail. After passing two months, neither the Ops refunded the amount nor gave any internet services to the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice (Annexure C-2) in the month of October, 2015 but to no avail. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, the complaint.
2. Notice issued to Op No.1 through registered post which has been received back with the report of refusal. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.05.2016.
3. The Op No.2 appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that the representative of OP already explained to the complainant that the connection would be installed after verification and feasibility and after completion of process, Op No.2 informed the complainant that the connection could not be installed on his given address due to some technical issue and the company shall refund the amount taken on advance, but he himself refused to accept the same. It is submitted that a senior official of OP No.2 tried their best even visited the given address of complainant but on spot he came to know that the complainant has shifted from the said address to another place. It is submitted that it was the duty of the complainant to inform the Ops about the change of address but he never informed the Op No.2. Thereafter, the Op No.2 any how approached the complainant and requested him to receive the cheque but he refused to accept the same. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the counsel for the Op No.2 has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R2/A and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. It is admitted fact that the complainant had applied for internet connection and also deposited Rs.1100/- on 03.09.2015 (Annexure C-1) qua its charges besides completing other formalities. The grievance of the complainant is that after passing 10-12 days from the payment, the Ops have not released the internet connection and informed him that the amount would be refunded within 7 days but till the filing of complaint, the amount was not refunded to him. On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that due to some technical connectivity issues, the internet connection was not feasible in his location therefore, the complainant was informed and requested him to receive the cheque but he had refused to receive the same. Perusal of the case file reveals that the complainant had applied for internet connection on 03.09.2015 and he in his complaint has specifically mentioned that the connection was to be provided within two days but when the Ops did not release the connection or refund the amount then he approached this Forum. The Ops have failed to rebut the pleas taken by the complainant and even also failed to show as to why the grievance of the complainant was not redressed. This act & conduct and the behavior which the Ops have done in the present complaint is enough to show that they are trying to fill the lacuna and also to cover the wrongs done on their part by saying for refund of payment. Moreover, the Ops should have booked for internet connection after its feasibility survey. Even the Ops did not place on file any document to show that they issued any cheque to the complainant. This forum felt concerned that these days in fast life style of society, internet connection has become part and parcel of every person but in the present case, it appears that the Ops have taken the matter in casual manner and failed to provide the internet connection to the complainant or refund the amount charged within time forcing him to approach this forum. The Ops have also not shown any reason for keeping the amount deposited by the complainant qua internet connection with them for such a long period.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

(i)      To pay Rs.1100/- to the complainant.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment.

(iii)    To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 Announced

22.07.2016        S.P.ATTRI          ANITA KAPOOR       DHARAM PAL

                          MEMBER           MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

 

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

 

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          MEMBER