Date of Filing: 04/12/2015
Date of Order:04/08/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prays for orders to direct the O.Ps to refund the amount of Rs.3,900/- along with Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards the loss of energy, time and to pay cost towards the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that Complainant is the customer of the O.Ps and he had obtained the internet connection from the O.P No.1 bearing account No.1301127 dated 20.3.2015 by paying an amount of Rs.3,370/-. It is stated that, while taking connection of internet on account of technical problem of the O.Ps though the amount is paid and the internet connection is not charged and thereby complainant again made the another payment of Rs.3,900/- for the recharge of the internet connection. Thereafter the complainant pursued the matter to the O.Ps and ask for refund of the extra amount paid to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not respond to the complainant and his calls. Further the complainant alleged that inspite of her several communications and telephonic calls O.Ps did not bother to repay or refund the extra amount paid to the O.Ps. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice to O.P.No.1 and 2, OP.No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their version. In the version it is contended that, complainant availed the service of O.P for high speed internet services and she has made payment twice to the O.Ps of Rs.3,900/- in one month i.e. on 3.11.2015 and that she is entitle for the refund of the amount. Further contended that complainant availed package of internet services i.e HD2 Stream BLR 50 Mbps. And the services was on quarterly payment of Rs.3,900/- for every three months and alleged that complainant herself, that for the last quarter she had not made payment well within the prescribed time. Therefore, the O.ps send the reminder to pay quarterly amount due and accordingly complainant had remitted Rs.3,900/- on 3.11.2015 through online.
4. On verification and enquiry a refund online was made on 21.12.2015 itself to the complainant and the statement appended herewith proves the same . Further contended that since this was a online transfer the complainant’s account would have received through instant remittance of Rs.3,900/- into her account. Hence contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and also contended that the complaint is not maintainable on facts. Ultimately O.P.No.1 and 2 prays for dismissal of complaint.
5. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.
6. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B): In the Negative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No.(A) & (B):-
8. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the complainant is the customer of the O.ps and availed the service of O.Ps for high speed internet services and she has made payment twice to the O.Ps of Rs.3,900/- in one month i.e. on 3.11.2015 and that she is entitle for the refund of the amount. Further contended that complainant availed package of internet services i.e HD2 Stream BLR 50 Mbps. And the services was on quarterly payment of Rs.3,900/- for every three months and alleged that complainant herself, that for the last quarter she had not made payment well within the prescribed time.
9. The sole allegation of the complainant is that when it was brought to the notice of the O.Ps regarding the double payment made to the O.Ps for internet service and the O.Ps on verification they found that regarding the double payment and contended that they have already refunded the amount through online on 21.12.2015.
10. The crux of the matter is to consider whether the O.Ps refunded the amount to the complainant account through online. It is worth to note that once the O.ps admitted in their version they have already refunded the amount in question through online to the account of the complainant and the burden lies on the O.Ps to prove the case.
11. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed their affidavit evidence. On perusal of the later dated 16.11.2015 sent through email it clearly discloses that O.ps accepting the double payment and informed the complainant that the refund matter has been escalated to concerned department and undertakes to refund the amount to the bank account of the complainant within 10 working days. On perusal of account extract produced by the O.P pertaining to the account No.1301127 relating to the complainant by name Raichel.S. It clearly reveals that, balance was refunded to the account of the complainant on 21.12.2015 and hence the burden of O.Ps discharged and the burden shifts on the complainant to disprove. However in order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant filed statement of account extract and the account standing in the name one Mr. Sobhith Kokoori Sukumaran to ascertain the fact on perusing the pleadings, evidence and the complaint clearly deposed in para 2 of the affidavit evidence about the account No.1301127 but the complainant produced account extract of the Mr. Sobhith Kokoori Sukumaran and the account No. shown as 231 701504068 it is different from the account number stated in the evidence. Furthermore, the statement of account extract produced since 4.10.2015 to 5.11.2015 but not produced the account extract for the month of December in order to ascertain whether the amount was transferred or not and the complainant also not produced any piece of paper from her bank regarding non-deposit of the amount in question from the O.Ps to her account. In the absence of vital evidence the case of the complainant is lame of strength and the complainant did not produce rebuttable evidence as per the statement of account produced by the O.Ps from 9.1.2015 to 8.2.2016 and it clearly reveals the online refund made to the account of the complainant. Under the circumstances we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence she is not entitled for the relief as sought in the complaint. Accordingly, we answered these points in the Negative.
POINT (C):
12. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the Negative, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint hereby is dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 4th Day of August 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*Rak
