Delhi

North East

CC/62/2020

Sh. Arunesh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Den BroadBand Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

12 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 62/20

 

 

 

In the matter of:

		Sh. Arunesh Sharma S/o Sh. Narendra Sharma R/o 1/5043, St. No.2, Balbir Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.         3.         4.	M/s Den Broadband Pvt. Ltd. 236, Okhla Industrial Estates, Phase-III, Delhi-110020   Mr. Munish Singla (Director) Den Broadband Pvt. Ltd. 236, Okhla Industrial Estates, Phase-III, Delhi-110020   Mr. Kunal Verma (Director) Den Broadband Pvt. Ltd. 236, Okhla Industrial Estates, Phase-III, Delhi-110020   Mr. Amit Singh (Director) Den Broadband Pvt. Ltd. 236, Okhla Industrial Estates, Phase-III, Delhi-110020		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		20.11.20 25.09.23 12.12.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant paid Rs. 3,600/- as payment done on 12.04.20 vide order               no. 10732408216 and purchased broadband plan with wi-fi Modem or internet services from Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties assigned user id ARU_102731 to Complainant and started the services. The Complainant stated that after 2-3 days speed of internet went down and after 7-8                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       days wi-fi went fully down and modem was showing some problem. The Complainant stated that since 21.04.20 Opposite Party stopped the internet service to Complainant till date. The Complainant stated that despite repeated requests through telephone and email representative of Opposite Party failed to give any satisfactory response regarding the status of the starting the broad band/internet service to the Complainant. The Complainant sated that he had also served legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 28.06.20 to refund all the charges paid by Complainant and for damages also but Opposite Party failed to do so. The Complainant has prayed to refund the payment made by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties against the bill of broadband services and wi-fi modem and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental harassment. He further prayed for granting interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Commission from the date of filing the complaint till realization and Rs. 45,000/- for litigation expenses as well as Rs. 5,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.4 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.09.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3

3. The Opposite Party No.1,2 & 3 contested the case and filed common written statement and stated that the Complainant paid an advance amount of payment  for Rs. 3,600/- and purchased broadband plant with wi-fi Modem and/or internet services from the Opposite Parties. It is further denied that after confirmation of payment, Opposite Parties assign User ID ARU102731 to Complainant and provides modem and started his services. It is pertinent to mention here that the broadband service which provides by Opposite Party is a prepaid service. It is further submitted that if any person is willing to avail the broadband services of the Opposite Party he has to approach to the representatives of Opposite Party, customer is free to choose the broadband plant as per his wish, after completing all the formalities, installation of broadband devices and recharge of the opted plan by the customer, the broadband service commences as per opted plan by the Opposite Party. It is submitted that wi-fi router and modem which will be installed in the customer premise will remain the property of Opposite Party and after suspension of services, customer has to return the same to the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that in the present case Complainant met the representatives of the Opposite Party in year 2015 for availing broadband services and after due understanding, Complainant has subscribed home broadband services of Opposite Party for enjoying broadband services. It is further submitted that after completion of required formalities, devices have been installed in the Complainant premises, his opted plan has been activated & broadband services has been started by the Opposite Party. It is pertinent to mention here that every customer get a default User ID as per the last 5 digits of customer application form No. (CAF) and in the present case User ID ARU_102731 has been assigned to the Complainant according to CAF no. i.e. DL0102731. It is further submitted that Complainant has started enjoying the broadband services provided by the Opposite Party and recharged the plan from time to time to extend the broadband services as per his wish. It is further submitted that last recharge for broadband services was done by the Complainant on 12.04.20 with a 6 month pack. It is submitted that the User ID ARU-102731 assigned to the Complainant since from the beginning in 2015 and not on 12.04.20 as alleged. It is submitted that wi-fi Modem has been provided by Opposite Party to Complainant at the time of activation of broadband services since 2015. It is further submitted that annexure A is merely a payment receipt and doesn’t show that on 12.04.20 broadband services has been activated for the first time on said date and user ID has been assigned to the Complainant on that date, needless to mention here that Complainant was availing services since 2015 and User ID he was using since 2015.
4. It is submitted that the broadband service provided by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is a prepaid service and not a post-paid service and to enjoy this service customer has to recharge his broadband service.
5. It is further submitted that the internet usage log available with the Opposite Party shows that the internet was working properly on 21.04.20. It is pertinent to mention here that with predesigned conspiracy to extract money from the Opposite Parties, first time complaint made with us on 05.06.20, clearly after stopping the use of Opposite Party broadband connection on the same day engineer of Opposite Party visited to inspect the broadband connection and he did not find any issue with the broadband rather one other broadband of another company was installed at the Complainant house. On enquiry with the Complainant by our engineer, Complainant told that he want his full money refunded which he recharged in April 2020 as he got another connection from different service provider, which is cheap in comparison to Opposite Parties services and the Complainant also told our engineer that he will make complaint to the Opposite Party on every day basis unless his total recharged amount is refunded. It is further submitted that after 04.06.20 Complainant stopped using the broadband intentionally  and told engineer of the Opposite Parties that he don’t want to use broadband services and want all his recharge money back.
6. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party has always provided good quality of broadband services to the Complainant and never deficient in providing broadband services. It is further submitted that Complainant has not filed any documents along with the complaint which shows that since 21.04.20 Opposite Parties interrupted/close and stop the broadband and/or internet services to the Complainant. It is further submitted that Complainant has not filed any documents in support of allegation levelled by him against the Opposite Parties in this instant para and Complainant has to put strict proof in this regard. It is submitted that the data usage of the Complainant on 21.04.20 was approx. 5.3 GB, which clearly establish that there was no deficiency in service as the connection was running fine on 21.04.20.
7. It is submitted that the Opposite Party has always provided good quality of broadband services to the Complainant. It is further submitted that Opposite Party has always performed its duty with due care and attention and never deficient in providing broadband services.
8. It is further submitted that just to harass the Opposite Parties Complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.06.20 which was duly responded by the Opposite Party. In fact the Opposite Party responded the legal notice twice through email that Opposite Party can process the refund on pro-rata basis after collection of device from Complainant premises and for this purpose also sought Complainant consent, but in spite replying to the email, Complainant filed the present frivolous and false case.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3

9. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, 2 & 3, wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

10. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1,2 and 3

11. In order to prove their case Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 have filed affidavit of Sh. Vikas Rawat, AR for Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

12. We have heard the AR of Complainant and Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a broadband service with    wi-fi modem from the Opposite Party on 12.04.20 and made a payment of Rs. 3,600/- and Opposite Party assigned user id to Complainant and started the services. It is alleged by the Complainant that after 2-3 days speed of internet went down and after 7-8 days wi-fi went fully down and modem was showing some problem. It is further stated by the Complainant that from the date of 21.04.20 Opposite Party stopped the internet service to Complainant till filing the complaint.
13. The case of the Opposite Party is that Complainant opted for broadband services from the Opposite Party in 2015 and not on 12.04.20 as stated by the Complainant. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that wi-fi modem was provided to the Complainant at the time of activation of broadband services since 2015 and merely a payment receipt dated 12.04.20 does not show that broadband service has been activated for the first time on the said date and user ID has been assigned to the Complainant on that date, needless to mention here that Complainant was availing services since 2015 and user ID he was using since 2015. It is further submitted by the Opposite Party that the internet was working properly on 21.04.20 and Complainant made complaint with them for the first time on 05.06.20. On receiving the complaint from the Complainant, engineer of the Opposite Party visited to inspect the broadband connection and he did not find any issue with the broadband rather one another broadband of another company was installed at the Complainant’s house. It is further stated by the Opposite Party that Complainant did not file any document along with complaint which shows that since 21.04.20 Opposite Party interrupted/ close and stop the broadband services to the Complainant. In fact the data usage of the Complainant on 21.04.20 was approx. 5.3 GB, which clearly establish that there was no deficiency in service as the connection was running fine on 21.04.20. Hence there is no deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
14. It is clear from the above fact that Complainant fail to mention in his complaint that he was using internet service of the Opposite Party from 2015 and not on 12.04.20. The Complainant also failed to led any evidence regarding deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the case is dismissed.
15. Order announced on 12.12.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain) Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President