Delhi

East Delhi

CC/580/2015

BANK DRT INFARMATIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

TIKONA DIGITAL - Opp.Party(s)

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 580/15

M/S BANK DRT INFORMATIC SERVICES

B-7, 2^ND FLOOR,

STREET NO.13, NEW DELHI-110095

•  

 

•  

 

 

TIKONA DIGITAL NETWORKS PVT. LTD.

3A, 3^RD FLOOR, ‘CORPORATION’

LBS MARG, DHANDUP (WEST),

1.  

ALSO AT:

B-117, VIKAS MARG, BLOCK U, SHAKARPURKHAS,

1448859.                 

                                                                                                          ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 04.08.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 13.02.2018

Judgment Passed on: 26.02.2018

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by M/S Bank DRT Informatics Services, the complainant, against Tikona Digital Network Pvt. Ltd., (OP) alleging deficiency in service.

Complainant is a registered partnership firm, having it registered office at 107-A, 29^th cross, 7^th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560075 & one of the offices at B-6 & 7, 2^nd floor, Street No.13, New Delhi-92. It has been stated that the complainant availed the services of OP for access to internet for research & receiving mails. It has been stated that OP proclaimed to provide services by ensuring connectivity, Last Mile Agnostic and efficient after sales support. The complainant being lured by claim of OP opted for plan ‘ADBBM4M950’, where eight devices could download 50 GB data @ 4 mbps and thereafter unlimited download at 512 kbps speed. The said plan was activated on 17.02.2015 and Rs.2,697/- were paid as fees on 18.02.2015. It has been further stated that the complainant being assured by OP, of the performance got the MTNL connection disconnected, but within few days problems like non availability of internet connection, low band width were faced by the complainant. Inspite of repeated phone calls and complaints the grievance was not redressed despite the inspection carried out by the technician of OP. The complainant is aggrieved by the bills issued by OP despite the fact that OP had failed to deliver services as promised. Legal notice dated 26.05.2015 issued to OP was not replied. Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP to refund Rs.3,345/- collected as advance as well as subscription for services not rendered, compensation of Rs.70,000/- for harassment and deficiency in services, Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

Complainant has annexed copy of the plan as Annexure-A, copy of the bill for the sum of Rs.2697/- as Annexure-B, copy of the E.mail received from the OP as Annexure-C, copy of the letter surrendering the MTNL connection as Annexure-D, screen shots taken by the complainant from the web site as Annexure-E, copy of identity card of the Engineer who was deputed by the OP as Annexure-F, copies of bills issued by OP as Annexure-G, copy of the letter dated 26.05.2015 as Annexure-H, copy of the tracking report as Annexure—I, copy of the legal notice issued as Annexure-J, copy of the receipt of legal notice by OP as Annexure-K, affidavit as Annexure-L.

Written Statement was filed by OP upon notice of the complaint, wherein they have stated that the complainant was consistently using services from 17.02.2015 to 26.05.2015 and all the complaints were resolved on time by customer care department. It was stated that the connection of the complainant had been suspended due to nonpayment as there were arrears of Rs.2,252/-. It was further submitted that the complainant was liable to pay Rs.1,066.14 for the services used for billing period 07.05.2015 to 06.06.2015 and was further liable to pay Rs.1500/- for non-surrender of modem. It was submitted that as goodwill gesture OP was ready to waive off Rs.1186.02 on the condition that the complainant surrendered the modem & paid Rs.1066.1.

Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant where all the contents of the written statement were denied & those of the complaint were reiterated.

Complainant got examined Sh. Aditya Bagur, Manager of the complainant firm, who deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and relied on Annexures annexed with the complaint.

Sh. Ramesh Sharma, consultant in Tikona Digital Network, Indore, was examined on behalf of OP who has reiterated the contents of written statement & has relied on bill for a period form 07.05.2015- 06.06.2015.

We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and AR for OP and have perused the material placed on record. Complainant has alleged that OP did not deliver services as claimed by them, be it in term of speed or customer care services. To support his allegation the complainant has placed on record the screen shot of the home page of the OP, which displays 60 GB at speed of 4 mbps under the plan opted by the complainant. The complainant has also given details of complaints made to the OP in a tabular form, which have not been denied by the OP, hence it is deemed to be admitted. The complainant has been successful in proving his allegations. Therefore we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and complainant shall handover the modem to the OP. The compensation awarded is inclusive of litigation expenses. Order be complied within 30 days from the date of order.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                 MEMBER

 

                                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                              PRESIDENT