Orissa

Rayagada

CC/232/2016

Debasish Khadanga - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ortel Communication Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA

                             

                                              C.C. Case  No.232/ 2016.

                                                                       

 P R E S E N T .

Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B,                              President.

Sri Gadadhara Sahu,B.Sc.,                                      Member.

            Debasish Khadanga,S/o B.P.Khadanga, R.K.Nagar, Forest Park         Lane, Po/Dist: Rayagada, 765001.                                                                                                                                                                                                            …….Complainant

1. Ortel Communications Ltd., Rayagada firm,Rayagada,765001.
2. Ortel Communications Ltd.,C-1,Chandrasekharpur,Behind R.M.R.C ,Near B.D.A Colony,BhubaneswarOdisha.751016.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …….…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:

For the complainant:- Self

For the O.Ps              :- Sri S. Mohanty and Associates, Advocate, Jeypore

 

                                                            JUDGMENT

The facts of the complaint  in brief is that  on 29/07/2016   the complainant  has installed  Setup Box of Ortel ,Rayagada  and paid Rs.1900/- for main connection and aRs.999/- for one additional connection vide Moneyu Receipt No.408063 but from  the very next day  the connection is not available and the complainant complained  the Ops several times but the Ops are not taking any steps to restore the connection . Further he has subscribed for Rs.275/-  pack  but the Ops  given pack of Rs.225/-. The service is very poor . In spite of several approaches the Ops are not paying any heed  and finding no other option the complainant filed this complaiont and prayed to direct the OPs  to take necessary action. Hence, this complaint. ence, H

 

Being noticed, the Opp.Parties appeared through their advocate, but   did not  turned up to file written version    as such the Opp.Parties  were set exparte and in absence of any written version from the opposite party we proceeded  the matter exparte and  believed  the contentions  as alleged by  the complainant.

                        Heard and perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the complainant and we accept the grievance of the complainant. The Complainant  argued that the OP failed to provide necessary service  after installation of the set up box to the complainant and claimed that the O.ps caused deficiency in service and deprived of the complainant  for enjoyment  for   which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

 

We perused the documents filed by the complainant.  Since the date of installation  the  setup  box   was found defective     and   the complainant  informed the Ops regarding the defect but the  Ops   failed to remove  the defect . At this stage we hold that  if the OP failed to provide necessary service  then it can be presumed that the OP is  incapable to provide such service  and only installed setup box   to collect the money from  the complainant  for which the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the article or to replace a new  one or  remove the defects  and also the   complainant is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet his mental agony , financial loss.  In the instant case  as it is appears that the setup box   which was installed by the OP was found defective  from the very next day and the O.ps were unable to restore its normal functioning . It appears that the complainant invested  a substantial amount and  installed the setup box   with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the same. In this case, the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use of the same  and deprived of using the same   and the defects were not removed by the O.ps who  know the defects from the  from the complainant.

Hence, in our view the complainant has right to claim compensation to meet  his mental agony, financial loss. Hence,  it is ordered.

 

                                                ORDER

                        The  opposite parties  are directed to  refund the amount paid by the complainant  with 12 % interest  and take back their setup box  within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay  Rs.50/-  per day  till  its compliance. Accordingly the complaint is allowed.

                        Pronounced in open forum today on this24^th day of November,2016 under the seal and signature of this forum.

                         A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties    free of charge.

 

 

             Member                                                                         President