Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/173/2017

Manjesh Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vserve Ecommerce Sales and Service Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Dhawal Bhandari

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/173/2017
Date of Institution	:	27/02/2017
Date of Decision	:	04/04/2018

 

Manjesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. J.N. Sharma, resident of H.No.450, Pipliwala Town (PWT), Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

 

(1)     Vserve Ecommerce Sales and Service Private Ltd., 485/11, Ahinsa Compound, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, India 110001, through its Authorized Representative.

 

(2)     Dish TV India Ltd., FC-19, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India 201301, through its Authorized Representative.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Dhawal Bhandari, Counsel for Complainant.
		Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte.
		Sh. Brijender Kaushik, Counsel for Opposite Party No.2.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Briefly stated the facts of the case, as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that on Opposite Party No.1 Customer Care trust the Complainant purchased complete package of Dish DTH System (HD Quality) for 1 year – (2 Quantity) of Opposite Party No.2 vide paying online payment of Rs.9,090/- on 22.09.2016. However, after installation, the Complainant was shocked to see that the package purchased was in fact for 06 months only instead of 1 year. On contacting the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant learnt that Opposite Party No.1 had sent payment to Opposite Party No.2 in break-up and not in lump sum and that for 06 months. Accordingly, a legal notice dated 26.10.2016 was served upon the Opposite Party No.1, but to no success. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
3.         The Opposite Party No.2 in its written statement has pleaded that it always performed its part of duty by providing the Complainant quality DTH service against the recharge request received by it from the Opposite Party No.1 on behalf of the Complainant. The Complainant did not face any problem in the reception of channels and all the claims of the Complainant in the Complaint was only against the Opposite Party No.1 Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has sought dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The Complainant has filed replication, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.2.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire evidence, written arguments submitted by the Opposite Party No.2 and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2 (Opposite Party No.1 being ex-parte).
7.         The Complainant has only one issue pertaining to the validity of the connection which the Complainant received as 06 months instead of 12 months due to the fault of Opposite Party No.1. Thus, to our mind, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed qua Opposite Party No.2 on the ground that the Complainant could not furnish any material on record against Opposite Party No.2 to substantiate his ground.
8.         In the present circumstances, the averments of the complaint have gone unrebutted in the absence of the Opposite Party No.1 who was duly served and preferred neither to appear in person, nor through its Counsel. It is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large.  Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.
9.         In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1, and the same is partly allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed, to:-

[a]    To refund Rs.9090/- to the Complainant.

[b]     To pay Rs.2500/- to the Complainant on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and harassment; 

[c]     To pay Rs.2500/- as cost of litigation;

 

                The complaint against Opposite Party No.2 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @7% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.2500/-.  
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/04/2018	[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]	[RATTAN SINGH THAKUR]
	Member	President
“Dutt”