BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.9 of 2018
Date of Instt. 02.01.2018
Date of Decision: 15.05.2018
Sh. Towinder Singh aged 28 years s/o Parminder Singh resident Village & Post Office Ganna Pind Tehsil Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
The Manager M/s Dreamtel Apna Tele Link Pvt Ltd SCO-1-12, 4th Floor, PPR Mall, Mithapur Road, Jalandhar.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)
Present: Sh. HK Mahi, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.
Opposite Party exparte.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is presented by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant had taken connection of Broadband set of the OP company, which was installed on 07.03.2014, vide customer ID 11597 and complainant paid an amount for the above said connection of Rs.3017/- by cash, vide Plan Amount of Rs.801/- P.M. regularly copy of customer verification and sign of document attached. The complainant regularly paying the bill amount for the above said service through cash and afterward by online from his account of Union Bank Branch Talwan Road, Phillaur, Distt. Jalandhar. In the month of April, 2017, the above said connection was not working properly and complainant requested many time for repair and replacement of Broadband set. Ultimately, on 11.06.2017 the service of Internet of the said set was stopped working. The negligence in providing service to the complainant has caused lot of harassment to the complainant. Inspite of his visits, the service centre of the OP, his problems have not been cured. The complainant is thus entitled to damages on account of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the OP. The complainant asked the OP to close the defective Broadband set and also refund the security amount. The OP is also responsible for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant and failed to remove the defective Broadband set, while request on 14.06.2017 and 19.06.2017. Thereafter, the complainant feeling aggrieved got served legal notice dated 22.11.2017 through his counsel upon the OP calling the OP to close/remove the Broadband set and to refund the security amount and also to refund the excess installments along with interest @ 18% from the date of installation of Broadband set and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, but no reply has been given by the OP of the aforesaid notice and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer for a relief as discussed above.
2. Notice of the compliant was given to the OP, but despite service OP did not come present and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte.
3. In order to prove the exparte claim of the complainant, complainant himself tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 i.e. Copies of Customer Verification/Receipts, Ex.C-13 Legal Notice and Ex.C-14 Postal Receipt and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the case file very minutely.
5. After considering the submission of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the case of the complainant against the OP is only that he got a connection of Broadband from the OP, but the said connection was not properly working in the month of April, 2017 and he reported the matter to the OP for replacement of the Broadband, but the OP did not bother and ultimately, the services of internet on the said Broadband set was stopped working completely on 11.06.2017 and thereafter, the complainant again make a request to the OP for replacement of the defective Broadband set, on 14.06.2017 and 19.06.2017, but again the OP did not bother and ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice on 22.11.2017 and copy of the legal notice is Ex.C-13 and postal receipt is Ex.C-14 and when no action was taken by the OP on the legal notice, then the instant complaint filed.
6. No doubt, the version of the complainant is un-rebutted and un-challenged, because despite service of the OP through branch manager Mr. Goyal, the OP did not come present to contest the case and ultimately, OP was proceeded against exparte. As per legal phenomenon, it is bounded duty of the complainant to stand its own leg and to prove his case independently without taking any benefit of the weakness of the OP. So, accordingly keeping in mind the above observation, we have to analyze the case of the complainant and find that the complainant alleged that the OP be directed to refund the security amount and compensation as well as direct the OP to remove the Broadband set and also demanded litigation expenses as well as interest.
7. In order to prove the allegation, the complainant brought on the file his own affidavit Ex.CA and one receipt Ex.C-1, whereby deposited Rs.3017/- and receipts of the bill Mark C-2 to Mark C-11 and copy of the legal notice and postal receipt, but in the whole complaint, it has not mentioned by the complainant that how much amount was deposited as a security and if the complainant himself is not aware that how much amount was deposited as a security, then what he is claiming for refund of the same and moreover, the complainant has not brought on the file any receipt, which shows that the complainant has deposited the security amount, the receipt Ex.C-1 does not depict that the amount deposit thereby is a security amount. So, with these observations, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for refund of the security amount, being reason the same is not proved to be deposited, if so then, the question does not arise to order for refund of the same.
8. Further in regard to other allegation, admittedly, the complainant has established on the file that there was some defect occurred in the Broadband set in the month of April and complainant make a request to the OP to repair and replace the said Broadband set, but they did not bother and ultimately, the same was stopped working completely and then matter was again reported to the OP on 14.06.2017 and 19.06.2017 and ultimately, a legal notice was served to the OP on 21.11.2017. It is clearly established that despite receiving a legal notice, the OP did not bother to provide a proper facility of internet service, which is clear cut deficiency in service as the complainant is paying the charges of internet, which is established from the copy of bank statement Ex.C-12, wherein, the internet charges upto June 2017 has been received by the OP, if the charges have been received by the OP, then it is the duty of the OP to provide proper services of internet. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.
9. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to remove the Broadband set and further OP is also directed to pay compensation for mental harassment to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the complainant will entitle to get interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount of Rs.8000/-, from the date of filing complaint, till realization. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh
15.05.2018 Member President
