THE MANAGER,QUADRANT TELEVENTURES LIMITED,VIDEOCON CONNECT. V/S VINOD KUMAR MAHAJAN.
VINOD KUMAR MAHAJAN. filed a consumer case on 06 Oct 2015 against THE MANAGER,QUADRANT TELEVENTURES LIMITED,VIDEOCON CONNECT. in the Panchkula Consumer Court. The case no is 127/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Oct 2015.
Haryana
Panchkula
127/2015
VINOD KUMAR MAHAJAN. - Complainant(s)
Versus
THE MANAGER,QUADRANT TELEVENTURES LIMITED,VIDEOCON CONNECT. - Opp.Party(s)
COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.
06 Oct 2015
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.
Consumer Complaint No
:
127 of 2015
Date of Institution
:
16.07.2015
Date of Decision
:
06.10.2015
Vinod Kumar Mahajan son of Sh.Harbans Lal Gupta, R/o House No.556, Sector-11, Panchkula (Haryana).
….Complainant
Versus
The Manager, Quadrant Televentures Limited, Videocon Connect, DSS 317 First Floor, Sector-9, Panchkula.
….Opposite Party
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Mr.Dharam Pal, President.
Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.
Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.
For the Parties: Complainant in person.
Op already ex-parte.
ORDER
(Dharam Pal, President)
The complainant-Vinod Kumar Mahajan has filed the present complaint against the Ops with the averments that he applied for broadband connection in November, 2014 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as security vide Sr. No.2586201 with the Op. But neither connection was given nor was the security refunded by the OP. The complainant visited many times in the office of Op for refund of his security amount and he was assured that the same would be refunded as and when approval was received from the higher authority. The complainant had issued a notice to the Op on 20.03.2015 which was duly received by Ms.Jyoti one of the staff member but the Op did not refund the security amount of Rs.1000/-. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Hence, this complaint.
Notice was issued to the Op through registered AD post. AD received back after effecting service. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op after effecting service. Op was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2015.
The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence.
We have heard the complainant appearing in person and have also perused the record carefully and minutely.
It is evident from the retail invoice (Annexure C-1) coupled with affidavit that the complainant applied for broadband connection in November, 2014 and deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as security vide Sr. No.2586201 with the Op. But the connection was not given nor was the security refunded by the OP. The complainant had issued a notice to the Op on 20.03.2015 (Annexure C-2) but the Op did not refund the security amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant has filed his sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
Moreover, the Op did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed ex-parte, which draws an adverse inference against him. The non-appearance of the Op shows that he has nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the same is accepted as correct and deficiency in service on the part of the Op is proved.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Op is directed as under:-
(i) To refund the security amount i.e. Rs.1,000/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of receipt till its realization.
(ii) To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.
Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
06.10.2015 S.P.ATTRI ANITA KAPOOR DHARAM PAL
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.
DHARAM PAL
PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.