Date of Filing 23.04.2024

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 08.07.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law),                                          …….PRESIDENT

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL,                                                                                ……MEMBER-I

CC.No.147/2024

THIS MONDAY, THE 08^th DAY OF JULY 2024

Mr.V.Ganesh,

S/o.S.Venkataraman,

Flat No.1D3, Happy Windows Apartments,

C T A Garden,

A R Nagar, Kattupakkam,

Chennai 600 056.                                                                                     ......Complainant.    

                                                                             //Vs//

M/s.Atria Convergence Technologies Limited,

Rep. by Sri T.Raghavendra Rao,

Team Act, O/o Appellate Authority,

Block No.143 at Old Door No.30-C,

South Boag Road,

New No.6, Chevalier Shivaji Ganesan Road,

Chennai 600 017.                                                                                  ……Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                                                  : Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                                              : Exparte.

This complaint coming before us finally for hearing on 02.07.2024 in the presence of complainant who appeared as party in person and the opposite party was set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of complainant’s side this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not refunding the credit amount to the complainant for the unused period along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.1712.17/- with 18% interest per annum, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Complainant availed internet service from the opposite party under the Plan Name CHN ACT Basic 6M+2M by paying a sum of Rs.5805/-.  As per plan by paying bill for 6 months in advance, 2 month additional service would be given.  Bill paid for the month of 24.01.2023 to 23.08.2023.  On 09.03.2023 complainant intimated opposite party to disconnect service from 16.03.2023 which was acknowledged by them.  On 01.04.2023 prior to complainant’s request it was reconnected.  But on conveying to disconnect, it was disconnected.  Again it was reconnected on 21.05.2023.  Thus the line was under disconnection from 12.03.2023 to 20.05.2023 and complainant had a credit of 66 days of service and asked the customer care staff that the next bill may be generated after adjusting this period.  Though accepted earlier, it was denied thereafter and was asked to pay the renewal bill for Rs.4148.19/- immediately. Complainant moved to another operator.  Thus seeking for refund of the credit amount for the 66 days the present complaint was filed as the opposite party failed to refund stating that they had no policy for refund along with a prayer seeking refund of Rs.1712.17/- with 8% interest and Rs.20,000/- compensation.

3. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed along with documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex9. Though notice was served to the opposite party he did not appear and hence he was called absent and set exparte on 18.06.2024 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.

Points for consideration:-

Whether the act of opposite party in not refunding the credit amount to the complainant for the unused period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point:-

4. Heard the oral argument of complainant.

5. It was the case of the complainant/party in person that he was forced to disconnect the services of the opposite party as they failed to give credit for the unused period of 66 days during billing for future services.  It is his arguments that earlier they accepted for adjusting the unused service days but later refused for the same.  It was also his submission that when he sought for refund, the opposite party denied it citing the Customer Application Form signed by the complainant, but failing to provide the same on request by the complainant.

6. On perusal of the pleadings and evidences we could see that the opposite party is a company providing internet and allied services and the complainant was a consumer who availed the services.  As per the email dated 20.08.2023 complainant sought for disconnection and for refund of the available balance in the account of complainant.  However, by way of reply dated 21.08.2023 the opposite party sent email only with regard to disconnection and no information was given to complainant with regard to the refund request. Only when, after the disconnection the complainant sent e-mail dated 22.08.2023 seeking for refund, it was informed by the opposite party on 23.08.2023 that as per ACT norms which was mentioned in the Customer Application Form (CAF) no refund could be made and only service could be availed until the subscription period.  This itself shows the clandestine attitude of the opposite party in not giving prior information about their policy of “non-refund”.  Further when the complainant requested for the CAF vide email dated 23.08.2023, the opposite party did not provide the same but simply provided an internet link to verify the terms and conditions.  At this juncture, the averment of complainant that he did not come across any terms and conditions about “non-refund” on browsing the said link assumes significance.  Further vide email dated 01.09.2023 the opposite party had sent an email response apologising for the inconvenience and stating that the request for refund was forwarded to the team and that they would get back to him in 48 years.  However, again in their further responses through email they again resorted back to their stand that they do no entertain refund request.  Thus the act of opposite party in not providing the CAF when requested by the complainant and also in altering their stands for not making the refund clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  If at all they had informed the complainant when requested for disconnection that no refund would be made, the complainant would have a secondary thought to continue the services until the credit was over. However the opposite party informed about their ‘refund’ policy only after disconnection was made.  This itself clearly shows the deficient service on the part of opposite party to deceive the customer.  Therefore, we answer the point holding that the act of opposite party in not providing a flawless/impeccable service to the complainant had committed deficiency in service.

7. Further, they also failed to appear inspite of sufficient notice to defend their stand.  With respect to the relief as complainant also failed to prove that he was entitled to refund, we direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant within 6 six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with cost of Rs.3,000/-.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them

a) To pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

b) To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;

c) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 9% per annum will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 08^th day of July 2024.

MEMBER-I                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

MEMBER-I                                                                                                           PRESIDENT