COMPLAINT FILED: 27.05.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th SEPTEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1212/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M. Chandra Shekar,<br /> No.61, 4th Main Road,<br /> Dommalur,<br /> Bangalore – 560 071.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Vision Tele Teck,<br /> No.34/2, Shri Hariram Complex,<br /> (Under Vijaya Bank),<br /> Behind Sagar Theater,<br /> K.G. Road,<br /> Gandhi Nagar, <br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.54,098/- including shop rent and compensation among other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. On 12.02.2009 complainant paid Rs.6,000/- and on 13.02.2009 Rs.5,000/- to OP and applied for EPCO software and BSNL broad band connection and one coin box. OP promised to provide the said facilities within 10 days from the date of receipt the payment. Based upon the promise the complainant took a new shop for rent at Ulsoor, for running the business of ticket booking, mobile recharging, bill payment etc., Further complainant took internet connection without which he cannot run his business of EPCO. But inspite of the repeated requests OP failed to give the broad band and EPCO connections. Complainant paid the shop rent for the month of February, March and April without business and received internet bill for sum of Rs.4,848/-. When OP failed to give proper reply complainant personally handed over the letter to OP for cancellation of the booking on 04.05.2009 and requested for refund of amount. OP promised to refund the amount within 15 days; on 15.05.2009 complainant personally met OP and requested to refund the amount, OP replied to refund the amount after making some deduction. Even after 2½ months when OP failed to refund the amount complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief’s accordingly<br /> <br /> 4. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was issued to the OP. Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable, hence OP is placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard. <br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complaint that complainant that with an intention to start his own business of ticket booking, mobile recharging, bill payment etc., applied for EPCO and broad band connections with the OP. OP having accepted Rs.6,000/- on 12.02.2009 and Rs.5,000/- on 13.02.2009 in total Rs.11,000/-, failed to provide the facilities within 10 days as promised. The receipts issued by OP is produced. Based upon the promise of the OP complainant booked shop for rent and took internet connections. When OP failed to provide the said facilities, on 04.05.2009 the complainant sought for cancellation of booking and refund of amount. <br /> <br /> 7. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of notice leads to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant. OP being a service provider should see that customers are served in a better way without giving any scope for negligence or deficiency in service. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. OP having retained the amount neither provided the facilities as promised nor refunded the amount. This act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. For no fault of his complainant is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence complainant is entitled for some compensation. Further complainant has sought for refund of Rs.7,500/- towards shop rent and Rs.30,000/- towards assistant’s salary but failed to produce any supporting evidence. Under the circumstances we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.11,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13.02.2009 to till realization with compensation of Rs.3,000/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of September 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m. <br />