Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- with cumulative interest @ 24@ p.a starting from 07.01.2020 and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- for litigation expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service, harassment, unfair trade practice and tremendous mental agony.
Defense Case:- The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that their company being a giant business house having country-wide business has its respective departments separately at different zones and that e-mails sent to the OP is received by receiving section and as a matter of practice and routine a formal response is instantly sent to those emails from receiving sections. Thereafter the e-mails are forwarded to the respective sections or departments for necessary scrutiny / action and it takes some time in view of large ;number of customers of the company and particularly in view of the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic while every office is being managed with limited staff strength. In the instant case, after the complainant surrendered his broad band connection, the op to their best knowledge and effort, without any delay refunded the security amount of Rs.2500/- to the given account of the complainant in the month of January, 2020 and also was informed vide e-mail dated 20.03.2020. Subsequently the e-mails sent by the complainant informing non-refund of the said amount being forwarded to the respective department / section, necessary enquiries / scrutiny were conducted and from the record of the op it revealed that security amount of Rs.2500/- was duly credited to complainant’s given account, which was duly informed to the complainant by OP’s email dated.12.6.2020 and as even after the mail dated 12.6.2020, the complainant alleged non credit of the said amount to his account, the matter was again referred to respective department of the op. The matter was again enquired and scrutinized and it revealed that the said amount of Rs.2500/- remitted to the complainant’s account was not credited to his account as the complainant’s bank IFSC code furnished by him did not match, which was not definitely a fault on the part of the op.
This Hon’ble Forum would certainly take judicial notice of the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic when each and every office and establishment had to be and still being managed with limited workforce. Due to non-availability of transportation and restriction on movement during lockdown, an abnormal situation prevailed for a long time for which even limited workforce was also not available.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The O.P.s have filed evidence on affidavit which reiterates the averments of the written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite parties have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issue numbers 3 and 4 are taken up simultaneously for disposal.
The specific complaint is that inspite of repeated endeavors the OP failed to comply the request of the petitioner. He also tried to convince the OP in numbers of time to comply with the request of the petitioner on different dates which yielded no result.
The OPs have informed the petitioner relating to refund of Rs. 2,500 relating to their failure for JioFiber ID 301130856212 on different dates the reason for which has been shown as wrong IFSC code number. Ultimately through exhibit IX the OPs have informed showing the details about the bank so that they can refund the amount of Rs.2,500 and the same request has been repeated through exhibit XI it appears through exhibit XII that there was an endeavor on the part of the OPs relating to refund and the said exhibit specifically mentions that the bank account credentials the petitioner has provided did not match with the actual resulting in rejection of the refund amount. The OPs in para 8 of their written version have admitted that the delay of sending the amount of Rs. 2,500 relates to giant business house have countrywide business at different zones and the emails are received by receiving sections as a matter of practice and routine which have caused delay in answering the queries of the petitioner and especially in view of the situation arising out of Covid-19 pandemic when every office was being run with limited staff strength. There was an endeavor on the part of the OPs about payment of Rs. 2,500 but the same cannot be taken with some shadow of doubt as it appears in para 9 itself of the written version the OPs could make endeavor to satisfy demand of the petitioner without making any such correspondences on different dates as this commission thinks could be the best.
In view of above discussion it cannot be denied that though the petitioner made earnest endeavor on different dates by sending different emails to different officials of the company, yet it cannot but be a lacuna on the part of the OPs to justify the demand of the petitioner.
Accordingly, both the issues are disposed of with the observation noted in the order.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 28 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the OPs.
The petitioner do get refund of Rs. 2,500 with litigation cost of Rs. 5,000. The entire amount of both the counts to be deposited within 45 days from date failing which the petitioner be at liberty to take recourse to law.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
