Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 620.

                                                                   Instituted on     : 28.12.2018.

                                                                   Decided on       : 07.08.2019.

Balwan Singh Dhanda age 66 years, s/o Sh. Phool Singh R/o H.No.314/1, Ward No.2, Sanjay Colony, Rohtak.

                                                                   .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Rama Cable Network, Indra Colony, Chodi Gali, Rohtak

(Proprietor Madhav &Manish)

                                                                             ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Sh. R.K.Bhatnagar, Advocate for opposite party.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that complainant has taken a network connection from the opposite party and is paying the rent of Rs.250/- per month against proper receipt.  That the complainant is regularly paying the rent and nothing is due against him. That the connection of the complainant is closed since 10.12.2018. That complainant made so many complaints to the opposite party to restore the connection but to no effect and opposite party told the complainant that the services will be started after December. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to restore the cable connection of the complainant or to give connection from any other operator and also to pay compensation of Rs.30000/- and Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that the connection was closed on 10.12.2018 due to some technical fault and the same was restored on the next day i.e. 11.12.2018. The complainant has filed the present complaint illegally on account of verbal altercation between the parties on that day. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.  

3.                          Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed his evidence on dated 19.03.2019. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party  failed to adduce evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and the evidence of  opposite party was closed by the order dated 16.07.2019 of this Forum.  

4.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          In the present case, it is not disputed that complainant is consumer of opposite party and is regularly paying the cable charges to the opposite party. The grievance of the complainant is that the services of the cable were stopped by the opposite party on 10.12.2018  and opposite party neither restore the services nor given the connection from any other operator. However, the payment was made for the alleged month. To prove this fact, he has placed on record his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and copy of receipts Ex.C1 to Ex.C8. On the other hand, contention of opposite party is that the connection was closed only for one day due to technical fault and the same was restored on 11.12.2018 and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. But opposite party has not placed on record any affidavit, technical report or any other document to prove the fact that the connection was closed due to technical fault. Opposite party has failed to adduce his evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities, which draws an adverse inference against him.  Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

6.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                         Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.      File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

07.08.2019.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member