COMPLAINT FILED: 28-02-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 13-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 13TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.501/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sheshadri Prathap .G.#129, Mahaveer Carnet Apts.Behind Church, Kengeri Satellite,Bangalore – 560 060.Party in personV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Tata Indicom Broadband,VSNL, The Horizon 20, 1st Floor, No.21,Wood Street,Opposite Brigade Towers,Bangalore Advocate – Sri.Swamy Shiva Prakash<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.8,023/- and pay a compensation of Rs.16,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant availed the services of the OP and took Broad band connection on 30-11-2007 for one year by paying Rs.8,023/-. On 01-04-2008 he changed his residence and requested OP to provide the said connection to his new residence. But no action was taken for more than 6 months, though his account expired on 31-11-2008. For want of the said Broadband connection he could not prosecute his profession. The repeated request and demands made to OP to refund the amount and pay compensation went in futile. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence, he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant did utilize the Brandband connection for several months. As on the date of expiry sum of Rs.4,856/- was only available in his account. OP did tried to extend the said service but unable to trace out the address of the complainant. OP offered complainant for migration of his connection to wireless connection. Complainant aggrieved for the same. But thereafter nothing is heard from the complainant, hence the said migration could not be completed so also as there was no availability of necessary signals at the address given by the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP is ready to refund the balance amount. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed Brandband connection from OP on 30-11-2007 for one year and paid Rs.8,023/-. Up to April’2008 complainant utilized the said service. Then he shifted his residence to some other place intimating OP to change the said connection to new address. But for more than 6 months OP did not act upon. Unfortunately his account was closed as expired on 31-11-2008. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 8. As against this it is contended by the OP that the complainant did utilize the said Broadband to maximum extent. As on the date of expiry the sum available in his account was only Rs.4,856/-. Of course on hearing from the complainant for shifting of the said connection OP requested the complainant to change the migration to one wireless. Complainant agreed for the same, on 01-05-2008. This fact is not denied or disputed by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. It is further contended by the OP that after the receipt of the request from the complainant they tested and verified feasbility of providing the internet as well as Broadband connection to his new residence. Unfortunately necessary signals are not available to process the said migration. Hence they could not do the same. We find there is substance in the defence set out by the OP. For want of necessary signal connection was not given for that OP cannot be blamed. With all fairness OP has submitted that they are ready to repay the remaining amount of Rs.4,856/-. With all that no steps are taken by the OP to refund the said amount to complainant immediately. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. OP having retained the said amount without providing the necessary service accrued wrongful gain to self thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant. Under such circumstance complainant must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. As such he is entitled for certain relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. <br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay Rs.4,856/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/-, litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the dated of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 13th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />