Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                             Complaint No. : 385.

                                                                             Instituted on     : 16.09.2020

                                                                             Decided on       : 19.09.2022.

Kuldeep s/o Sh. Ved Parkash r/o 74/13, Kripal Nagar, Rohtak(Haryana) 124001.

                                                                             .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

Tripleplay Broadband Private Limited, Galleria Market Basement DLF City Phase-IV, Gurgaon-122009.

                                                                                                                                                                                                ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                                ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had taken internet connection on 15 January 2020 from the opposite party and had paid 3 months advance payment for the same. He had used the connection only for 45 days and had closed the same on 29^th February 2020. Complainant requested the opposite party to refund the balance amount  but despite his repeated requests,  no amount has been refunded by the opposite party whereas at the time of installation, opposite party told the complainant that if he will pay the 3 months advance payment, then the complainant was no need to pay the installation charges  and only security charges of Rs.500/- will be paid by the complainant. But now the opposite party is saying that only installation charges were charged and no security was taken by the opposite party.  The act of opposite party is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the balance amount and also to pay compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.  

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared but did not file any reply. However, on 05.07.2022,  none appeared on behalf of opposite party and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.07.20202 of this Commission.

3.                Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6  and closed his evidence on dated 29.07.2022.

4.                We have heard the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                As per the receipt Ex.C2, complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3824/- to the opposite party, out of which an amount of Rs.708/- per month has been charged for three months, Rs.500/- as activation charges and Rs.1200/-on account of Wifi Router.  The grievance of the complainant is that he used the connection only for 45 days  i.e. for 1½ months and thereafter requested the opposite party through emails Ex.C5 & Ex.C6 to refund the security amount and balance rent paid by him but the same has not been refunded to the complainant till date. On the other hand, opposite party neither filed any reply nor any evidence and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.07.2022 of this Commission. As such, it is presumed that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to pay the balance 1½ months rent(Rs.708/- + Rs.354/- =1062/-). Complainant has also sought refund of security amount of Rs.500/- from the opposite party but perusal of Ex.C3 shows that Rs.500/- has been charged as Activation charges and not as security amount. Hence complainant is not entitled for this amount.

6.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the alleged amount of Rs.1062/-(Rupees one thousand and sixty two only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 16.09.2020 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

19.09.2022.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                                        ………………………………..

                                                                        Vijender Singh, Member.