Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/679/2017

J.P. Nahar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, Connect Broadband - Opp.Party(s)

Siddhartha Nahar Adv.

29 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	679 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	05.09.2017
Date of Decision	:	29.06.2018

 

                                               

                                                         

J.P.Nahar # 234, Mamta Enclave, Dhakoli Zirakpur, District Mohali, Punjab.

                 ...  Complainant.

Versus

1]  The Managing Director, Connect Broadband, Head Office Quadrant Televenture Ltd., Phase-VII, Industrial Area, Mohali, Punjab.

 

2]  The Zonal Manager, Connect Broadband, Zonal Office SCO 62, 1st Floor, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  The Branch Manager, Connect Broadband, Zonal SCO 451, 1st Floor, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh-160035.

 

4]  Sh.Rakesh Kumar Sharma (address to be furnished by OPs No.1 to 3). {Deleted as per order dated 21.12.2017}

 

5]  Ms.Anshul Srivastava (address to be furnished by OPs No.1 to 3). {Deleted as per order dated 21.12.2017}

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.J.P.Nahar, complainant in person. 

                    Sh.Karun Kumar, Adv. for Opposite Party No.1

                    OPs No.2 & 3 Exparte

                    OPs No.4 & 5 deleted.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

                Briefly stated, the complainant already having one internet connection in one of his two houses applied for one more connection for his other house. The technicians of the OPs installed the devices i.e. modem, router and antenna (on the terrace of the house).  The said wifi internet connection having user No.WIFI386548JEP was taken in January, 2017. In order to get disconnected the said connection, the complainant deposited due amount of Rs.593/- on 10.02.2017 with the OPs and he received message on the same date of disconnection as a result of payment of pending amount. Subsequently, the complainant requested the OPs vide e-mail dated 10.02.2017 to collect the modem, router and antenna but the same was not collected despite assurances.  Ultimately, the complainant himself tried to submit the modem to the staff of the OPs but they asked him to deposit the antenna too or else they will not accept it. However, he showed his inability to deposit the antenna as it is installed on the top of the terrace by the technicians of the OPs and it is possible only for a trained technician to uninstall the same.  It is claimed that it is the liability of the OPs to uninstall the device and get it collected from the premises of the complainant. 

         It is submitted that the complainant had received a phone call from OPs on 15.04.2017 that a case titled as Deepak Batra Vs. J.P.Nahar is pending against him in the Lok Adalat at Court No.10, Tees Hazari Court, Delhi. On enquiry, it was informed that the said case No.DR91945 pertains to the outstanding payment of Rs.3460/- towards the said WIFI386548 connection. Subsequently, he visited the office of the OPs at Chandigarh where their officials tried to cover up the situation by saying that there is still Rs.500/- pending which he was supposed to pay.  He asked the OPs regarding the evidence in the form of SMS or phone call or e-mail regarding the said due amount.  The complainant took the device i.e. modem and router with him and handed over the same to the OPs against receipt dated 15.04.2017. Finally, he got served a legal notice dated 17.04.2017 upon the OPs to which no reply was received. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.

 

2]       In its written statement, OP No.1 while admitting the factual matrix of the case has pleaded that the complainant made the payment of Rs.593/-.  It is denied that the complainant approached the OPs for disconnection of the internet connection and handing over the modem, router and antenna.  It is pleaded that the complainant has created a false story to mislead the Forum by concocting and distorting the facts and circumstances of the case. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions made in the complaint and controverting that of the reply filed by Opposite Party No.1

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.

 

6]       In the present complaint, the matter is evident to the fact that due request for disconnection of WiFi internet connection was made to the Opposite Parties vide e-mail dated 10.2.2017 (Ann.C-5) after the payment of due outstanding amount. There is nothing on record from the side of the Opposite Parties to prove that against the request made vide email dated 10.2.2017 (Ann.C-5), they even collected the WiFi router & adopter or get the antenna uninstalled from the premises of the complainant.

 

7]       It is evident vide Ann.C-8 that ultimately the complainant delivered the modem and adapter to the Opposite Parties on 15.4.2017, but could not deliver the antenna being unable to uninstall the same.  The complainant claimed that the OPs despite request of disconnection had not uninstalled the antenna installed by the OPs while giving connection in dispute.

 

8]       The denial of the OP No.1 that it has not received any request for the disconnection of WiFi connection or for the collection of the modem, router and antenna from the complainant is altogether a bundle of lies. It is quite evident on record that the complainant vide email dated 10.2.2017 (Ann.C-5) requested for the disconnection and also delivered the modem & router to the officials of the OPs vide receipt dated 15.4.2017 (Ann.C-8). Such wrong denial on the part of OP No.1 draws an adverse inference and proves the case of the complainant that the Opposite Parties failed to provide due services to the complainant and indulged into unfair trade practice. 

 

9]       The allegation about the hoax call received by the complainant from the Opposite Parties has not been encountered specifically, rather, Opposite Party No.1 submitted an evasive denial to the said allegation.  In the reply, the Opposite Party No.1 has also not claimed any outstanding due against the complainant, which the complainant alleged to have been demanded by the OPs through hoax call. Even the registered legal notice sent by the complainant remained unanswered. This further leads to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties resorted to unfair trade practice, which needs to be curbed.    

 

10]      For not providing due services and for indulging into unfair trade practice, causing harassment and humiliation to the complainant, the Opposite Parties deserves to be saddled with cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, the present compliant is allowed and the OPs No.1 to 3 are directed to jointly & severally pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation cost, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which the awarded amount shall also carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

        Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29th June, 2018 

                                                                                                Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER