distt.consumer moga district consumer forum,moga consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/159
Raj Kumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sapphire Communication
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Jagmohan Singh Chawla 2. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA. Complaint No: 159 of 2008. Instituted On: 05.11.2008. Decided On: 07.11.2008. Raj Kumar (aged 35 years) son of Surinder Kumar, resident of Shop Gandhi Road, Near S.D.School, Moga Tehsil and Distt,.Moga. Complainant. Versus Sapphire Communication Reliance S.T.D, P.C.O. Ist Floor, Dr.Dev Raj Building, Railway Road, Moga Tehsil and District Moga thorough Tejinder Singh Brar, Proprietor and Rajiv Arora, Partner Opposite Party. Complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum: Sh.J.S.Chawla, President. Sh.Jit Singh Mallah, Member. Present: None for the complainant. Sh.Raj Kumar, complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after referred to as Act) against Opposite Party-Sapphire Communication for directing them to refund Rs.1000/- paid by him as security. It was averred that he got a telephone connection bearing no.01636-322137 against the deposit of Rs.1000/- as security. Lateron, the complainant got disconnected the said telephone connection and requested the Opposite Party-Sapphire Communication to refund the security of Rs.1000/-, but they have failed to do so on one pretext or the other. Hence, the present complaint. 2. We have gone through the allegations and documents attached with the complaint. The complainant has failed to attach the receipt regarding the deposit of Rs.1000/- as security with the Opposite Party- Sapphire Communication at the time of getting the telephone connection in question. Hence, he has failed to prove that he has deposited security of Rs.1000/- at the time of getting the telephone connection or that he is entitled to get the refund of the same after the disconnection of said connection. 3. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the present complaint is maintainable under the Act. Hence, the instant complaint cannot be admitted and the same is dismissed being not maintainable. File be consigned to record room. (Jit Singh Mallah) (J.S.Chawla) Member President Announced in Open Forum. Dated: 07.11.2008.
