CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110 016

Case No.114/12

Sh. Ankur Aeron,

S/o Sh. Rakesh Aeron,

R/o House No.19, Jatan B-3, Bijnor-246701.                     ………. Complainant                                                                                        

                        Vs.

1. Seventy MM Services Pvt.Ltd.

T-29, 3^rd Floor, Okhla Industrial Area-2,

New Delhi-110020

2. Seventy MM Services Pvt.Ltd.,

41 Abhaya Towers, 3^rd Main, 4^th Cross,

Chamarajpet, Banglore 560018.                                                                                                                                                                               …………..Respondents

Date of Order: 21.07.2016

O R D E R

Ritu Garodia- Member

            The facts of compliant are that the complainant purchased a subscription from OP Company for Rs.899/- for watching movies. The payment was made on 30.11.2011. The complainant being unhappy with the service requested for the cancellation on 08.12.2011.  The mail was duly received by OP Company and reply was sent to complainant on the same day.   OP company by mail dated 06.01.2012 stated that the complainant’s account has been cancelled and the amount was reversed on 13.10.2011.  The same mail was reiterated by OP on 11.01.12 and 18.01.2012.  The complainant, thereafter sent a notice to OP on 02.02.2012 that refund of Rs.899/- has not been made till date and sought transaction details.  The complainant has also

-2-

annexed email dated 9.02.2012 by OP company wherein the transaction details are given.  The complainant prays for refund of Rs.899/- and Rs.50,000/- as damages.

            OP was proceeded ex-parte on 05.06.2013 as they failed to present their version dispite repeatedly seeking time for filing the reply.

            Perusal of the complaint and emails annexed shows that the complainant has purchased a subscription for Rs. 899/- for movies.  This is duly admitted by OP in its mail. Being unhappy with the service, the complainant asked for refund.  OP has time and again sent mails stating that the refund has been made.  The complainant has also placed the legal notice in which transaction details were sought.  OP has sent details of transaction wherein card holder name were given, card number, time of receiving, terminal ID and brand ID showing payment.

However, the complainant has not placed any proof by way of his bank passbook or account statement of this period that refund has not been received by him.  The complainant has not verified or denied the transaction detail in any manner whatsoever.

Hence, there is no reason to believe that the money was not refunded.  The complaint is dismissed in the light of facts disclosed. File be Consigned to record room.

(D.R TAMTA)                                   (RITU GARODIA)                            (A.S YADAV)

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT