Haryana

StateCommission

A/934/2015

KUSHI RAM JAKHAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHAPRABANDHAK BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

S.K.DAARIA

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                First appeal No.934 of 2015

Date of the Institution:16.10.2015

and  23.10.2015

Date of Decision: 27.11.2015

 

Kushi Ram Jakhar R/o A-92 Preet Vihar, Rohtak Distt. Rohtak (Haryana)

                                                                             .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Mahaprabandhak, B.S.N.L., HUDA Complex Main Road, Rohtak.

 

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.S.K.Darria, Advocate for the appellant.

 

O R D E R

 

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was giving the telephone and internet services , (as mentioned in the complaint for 12 years), but, was having some problem since 11 months.  He requested the Opposite party (O.P.) to rectify the same , but, to no use.  More amount was charged from him regarding the replacing of the phone.  He had already deposited Rs.863/- with the O.P., but, no action was taken.  He was feeling harassment since long and requested O.P. to remove the problem, but, to no avail.  O.P. be directed to pay Rs.873/- which is already paid twice by him and Rs.8500/- of the previous bill paid by him, Rs.600/- for replacing telephone instrument, Rs.25000/- for Advocate’s consultancy fee and Rs.50000/- as compensation and damages.

2.      O.P. controverted his averments and alleged that there was no deficiency in service on their part.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (in short “District Forum”) observed as under:-

“After going through the file and hearing the parties and in view of the statement made by ld. Counsel for the opposite party, it is observed that the opposite party shall change the telephone instrument of the complainant within 15 days from the date of depositing the required amount of Rs.600/- (Rupees six hundred only) by the complainant and opposite party shall also change the wire of telephone. The amount of Rs.873/- charged  twice by the  opposite party shall also be adjusted in the future bills.  It is also directed that while “rounding off” the figure, the principle of more than 50 paise would be applied by the opposite party in future bills. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom complainant has preferred this appeal and has requested to direct the O.P. to return the amount of the bill already paid by him and Rs. One lac as of compensation and to resolve the problem.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      The grievances of the complainant  are well redressed by the impugned order dated 17.09.2015. The learned District forum has  already ordered is to adjust the amount already paid by him.  Learned District forum has discussed every aspect from every angle and there is no necessity to interfere in the same. Resultantly the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.

 

November 27th, 2015

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench