Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/355

Dr. Pritam Singh Chokker - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Pamma Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

21 Feb 2017

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :       355

Date of Institution :  7.12.2016

Date of Decision :    21.02.2017

Dr Pritam Singh Chokker aged about 50 years s/o Sh Suraj Bhan Singh r/o Akash Villa, Street No.5, Hira Singh Nagar, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.     

                                                               ...Complainant

Versus

1. Managing Director, Pamma Electronics, Opp. Batra General and Bangle Store, Ghasita Mal Street, Kotkapura.

2. Managing Director, Airtel DTH (Bharti Airtel Ltd), Airtel Centre, Plot No.16, Udhyog Vihar, Phase IV, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

         ........ OPs

   Complaint under Section 12 of the

   Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    

   Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

   Sh P Singla, Member.

   Present:       Sh G S Chauhan, Adv. Ld Counsel for Complainant,

   OPs  Exparte.

   (Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

                      Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to refund the amount of Rs.2,880/- with interest and to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,500/-as litigation expenses.

   2                        Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that on 2.03.2016, complainant got recharged one year service pack of OP-2 through OP-1 and paid Rs.2,820/-for this pack. OP-1 activated the said pack and assured regarding continuance of said pack till completion of one year, but pack in question was suspended by OP-2 even during the starting days of November, 2016 though it was supposed to run till 3.03.2017. Complainant complained about this fact to OP-1, who informed him that service pack of complainant was activated for HD channel and complainant was surprised to know that he never permitted and paid charges for activating the HD Channels. Complainant made several requests to OPs to activate his channel for remaining year, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs, but they did not bother to give any reply. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith litigation cost besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

   3                      The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.12.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

   4                     Notice containing copy of complaint and relevant documents was issued to Ops, but same has not been received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Case has been called out many times but despite repeated calls, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of Ops either in person or through counsel on the date fixed, therefore, all the OPs were proceeded against ex parte vide order dt 31.01.2017.   

   5                     The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 and then, closed his evidence.

   6                   In the absence of any rebuttal, Ld Counsel for complainant in his exparte arguments vehementally contended that on 2.03.2016, complainant got recharged one year service pack of OP-2 through OP-1 and paid Rs.2,820/-for this pack. OP-1 activated the said pack and assured regarding continuance of said pack till completion of one year, but pack in question was suspended by OP-2 even during the starting days of November, 2016 though it was supposed to run till 3.03.2017. Complainant complained about this fact to OP-1, who informed him that service pack of complainant was activated for HD channel and complainant was surprised to know that he never permitted and paid charges for activating the HD Channels. He made several requests to OPs to activate his channel for remaining year, but all in vain. Complainant also served legal notice to OPs, but they did not give any reply. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him. He has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses. He has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 3.

   7                 As there is no rebuttal from Ops side, therefore, we have heard the ex-parte arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

   8                After careful perusal of record placed on file and from the careful examination of document Ex C-2, which is legal notice issued by complainant through his counsel, it is clear that complainant was  harassed by OPs and there is deficiency in service on their part and it explains the pleadings of complainant. Through affidavit Ex OP-1, he has reiterated his grievance. There is no doubt that complainant availed the services of OPs and there seems to be no reason to make doubt that complainant is the consumer of OPs and allegations of complainant are correct. He might have paid payment for recharging the pack for whole year on assurance of OPs, and sending of legal notice by complainant also proves that OPs would have paid no heed to his earlier requests made by him and it is sure that complainant faced harassment through the act of OPs in not providing the services of connection for entire year despite having received the payment for full year pack. Moreover, OPs did not come present in the Forum to defend the allegations levelled by complainant though they have sufficient notice of present complaint filed against them. Complainant paid this amount to OPs for one full year for availing their services pertaining to transmission of programmes to his TV and when transmission was disturbed, complainant made repeated requests to OPs to clear the problem but all in vain. Through his affidavit complainant has reiterated his grievance. These two documents are cogent evidence, authenticity of which can not be ignored.  It proves that Ops have been deficient in services and they did not come up to fulfil their services uninterruptedly. Act of Ops in not paying heed to the requests of complainant and even to the notice issued by this Forum amounts to trade mal practice on their part. All this proves that Ops have caused great harassment to complainant by not providing the airtel supply properly to complainant. All this caused harassment and mental tension to complainant, which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses.

   9               From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, this Forum is fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not providing supply of airtel dish service to complainant for full year. Hence, the present complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,820/- received from complainant and are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.1000/-as litigation expenses. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

   Announced in Open Forum

   Dated : 21.02.217

                                                  Member                              President

                    (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)