Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/172

Amritpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Net Plus Broadband - Opp.Party(s)

G.S Sidhu

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 172 dated 01.04.2019.                                                                 Date of decision: 23.01.2023  

 

Amritpal Singh aged 32 years son of Sh. Amar Singh, R/o.125, Sant Vihar, Churpur Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana. Ph. 9501110009.                                                                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Netplus Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office 5^th Floor, The Grand Walk Mall, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana through its Partner/Authorized signatory.
2. Leona Cable TV, Resident Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana (Proprietor).
3. Gagan Employee of Netplus Broadband Service Pvt. Ltd., Registered office 5^th Floor, The Grand Walk Mal, Ferozepur Road,Ludhiana.                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

                   Complaint under Section 12 and 14 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 for installation of Netplus Broadband at his place of residence. On 15.02.2019, opposite party No.3 an employee of opposite party No.1 visited his house and enquired about the existence of any previous net connection to which the complainant the complainant replied that there is one net connection of Connect Company installed in the name of his brother Gurpreet Singh. Opposite party No.3 claimed that the speed of their net is comparatively fast and on the assurance of opposite party No.3, the complainant agreed to get the net connection installed. As per the demand of opposite party No.3, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.250/- vide receipt Ex. C2. Opposite party No.3 promised to install the connection within two days but the same was not installed. The complainant approached the opposite parties who informed that there is a bill due against the brother of complainant who is residing in the same accommodation. In fact, according to the complainant, there is no bill due against the brother of complainant namely Gurpreet Singh. The complainant repeatedly visited the opposite parties time and again for installation of the net connection but they refused to install a new net connection in the name of the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant is entitled for compensation. In the end, a prayer has been made to approve the claim of the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for expenditure suffered by the complainant along with further compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental and physical agony besides litigation costs of Rs.25,000/- and refund of Rs.250/- along with interest.

2.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed joint written statement by taking preliminary objection of maintainability of the complaint and suppression of material facts by the complainant. The opposite parties submitted that in fact one connection was installed in the house of the complainant in the name of his brother Gurpreet Singh on 28.01.2017 with service account No.0000191255 who had not paid the amount of Rs.1694/- to opposite party No.1 so opposite party No.1 terminated the service of brother of the complainant due to non payment. The house No.125, Sant Vihar, Churpur Road, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana falls in the list of defaulter customers. When opposite party No.1 tried to create the account of the complainant then the above said address shows in the list of defaulter customers list. The opposite parties informed the complainant that bill due against his brother is not got cleared by the complainant or his brother himself, they are unable to install connection in the name of the complainant but the complainant flatly refused to clear the due bill. The opposite parties further alleged that they are ready to refund Rs.250/- to the complainant.

                   On merits, the opposite party reiterated the facts stated in preliminary objections and brief facts of the case and denied the deficiency of service on their parties. In the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                During the pendency of the complaint, the opposite parties absented themselves from the proceedings and even did not conclude their evidence despite grant of sufficient chances and thus, their evidence was closed by order. As none turned up for the opposite parties since 02.05.2022, as such, they were proceeded against exparte.

4.                In support of his exparte claim, the complainant tendered affidavit Ex. CW1 in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of his aadhar card, Ex. C2 is the copy of customer agreement form of Netplus Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd., Ex. C3 is the copy of PAN card of the complainant  and closed the evidence.

5.                The opposite parties did not tender any evidence formally but at the time of filing of written statement, the opposite parties submitted documents i.e. Ex. R1 is the certified copy of resolution, Ex. R2 is the customer agreement form of Netplus Broadband Services Pvt. Ltd. in the name of Gurpreet Singh Sidhu, Ex. R3 is the copy of identity card of Gurpreet Singh, Ex. R4 is the copy of registration certificate of vehicle PB10-BG-1213 in the name of Gurpreet Singh, Ex. R5 is the copy of customer summary, Ex. C6 is the  copy of account statement summary view,

6.                We have heard the arguments of the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement, affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                It may be noticed that when opposite party No.1 visited the house of the complainant, he was made aware of the fact that another connection belonging to Connect Company is operational in their residential house. At that time, opposite party No.3 on behalf of opposite party No.1 and 2, narrated excellent features and compared the same with the Connect Company. He never disclosed this fact that in case of any outstanding payment of the Connect Company, the opposite parties will not be in position to install new connection until or unless the outstanding dues are paid. The opposite parties have not relied upon or referred to any law, rule or regulation which bars the installation of a new connection. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the given facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs.250/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of payment till actual payment and also to pay composite cost of Rs.2500/- to the complainant.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.250/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of payment till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Amritpal Singh Vs Netplus Broadband                           CC/19/172

 

Present:       Sh. G.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant.

                   None for the OPs.

 

                   None turned up for the opposite parties today also nor evidence has been concluded by the opposite parties despite grant of sufficient chances. None has been appearing on behalf of the opposite parties since 02.05.2022 and their evidence is closed by order and the opposite parties are proceeded against exparte due to non-appearance by anyone on their behalf.           

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the complainant heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is partly allowed with direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.250/- to the complainant along with interest @8% per annum from the date of payment till actual payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite parties shall further pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) to complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Liability of the opposite parties shall be joint and several. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                      President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:23.01.2023.

Gobind Ram.