For Complainant          :             Sri S. K. Mohanty, Advocate & associates.

For Opp. Party               :             Sri PVS Nanaji Achary, Advocate & associates.

                                                                                                                 -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he was availing cable network services of the OP vide Consumer No.01575192 by depositing Rs.1250/- as security deposit with a fixed monthly charge of Rs.220/-.  It is submitted that when the office of the OP was functioning in the locality of the complainant, the service of the OP was good but after shifting of office to Sriram Nagar, Parabeda, the complainant including the customers of that area are not getting proper networking.  The complainant submitted that after deposit of monthly rent, the OP also intentionally disconnected the facility and after complaint over phone, the OP restored the facilities.  It is also submitted that on 24.02.2018 the complainant along with his friend visited the OP’s office at Parabeda to lodge complaint but the Accountant of the OP’s office misbehaved the complainant and when the complainant requested him to receive set up box and refund security deposit of Rs.1250/-, the Accountant stated that SD amount cannot be refunded and it will be adjusted in future.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund the SD amount of Rs.1250/- and to pay Rs.3.00 lacs towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                         The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant is a customer of the OP.  The OP denied any SD amount received from the complainant at the time of installing digital setup box and also denied any complaint received from the complainant regarding poor service provided to him.  It is contended that the complainant was not paying the monthly dues regularly and never lodged any complaint.  The OP further stated that there is no such provision in the agreement between the parties to refund SD amount.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                         The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from him at length in absence of the OP and perused the materials available on record.

4.                         In this case availing of cable network by the complainant from OP is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that due to poor networking he was unable to view the channels through the TV and on repeated complaint the OP pays a deaf-ear.  The complainant further stated that without any reason, the OP disconnected the facilities and on complaint over phone, they restored the facilities.  Due to poor service the complainant has visited the office of the OP on 24.02.2018 to surrender the setup box and according to the complainant; the Accountant of the office misbehaved him and did not receive the setup box.  The office also did not agree to refund the SD amount.

5.                         It is seen from the record that the complainant had sent a notice through his advocate to the OP on 26.2.2018 requesting refund of SD amount and the OP has received the said letter on 28.02.2018 but the OP did not prefer to reply.  Disconnection of facilities to the house of the complainant is an admitted fact in this case.  After the disconnection was made, the OP also did not refund the SD amount to the complainant.   Further the OP also did not disclose in its counter or in any mode to show as to how much amount is pending against the complainant.  This aspect of this case is silent.

6.                         The OP stated in his counter that refund of SD amount to the customer is not available in the agreement and hence they cannot refund the same to the complainant.  A simple say about the agreement will not do.  The OP in support of his contention has not filed the copy of agreement in order to know the exact position of the agreement signed between the parties.  No evidence is also laid down by the OP regarding any pending dues against the complainant.  It is seen from the complaint petition duly supported by affidavit that the complainant has paid monthly dues up to Jan’18 and disconnection was made in February.  Any denial to the complainant to surrender the facilities amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.  Further as the service meant for the complainant was poor, it certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  In the above premises, the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.1250/- towards SD amount with interest from the month of February, 2018.  For such ill practice of the OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings, we feel, a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

7.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to refund Rs.1250/- towards SD amount with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.02 2018 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)