Satinder Kaur D/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh, resident of JE-88, Jamalpur Colony, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



1. Info-tel Business Solutions Ltd. , 6th Floor, Surya tower, Mall Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.



2. HFCL INFOTEL LTD. Regd. Office B-71, Industrial Area, Phase-VII, Mohali through its Manager/Incharge Officer/Managing Director.

(Opposite parties)


O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:


1. Complainant intended to have a new internet connection. Consequently on 11.9.2008, approached opposite party no.1 through its official Smt. Geetanjali Sharma and opted for plan of Rs.444/- for new internet connection. Then on 13.9.2008, employee of the opposite party no.1 visited residence of the complainant, inspected location for installation of internet connection. Thereafter for installation of the same obtained Rs.562/- from the complainant and issued the receipt. She on 15.9.2008 contacted Ms. Geetanjali Sharma on her mobile for installation of the connection but she switched off her mobile, instead f receiving the call.

Then approached Customer Care Centre of opposite party, who also failed to give satisfactory response. As directed by them, complainant contacted on mobile no. 98770-12549, who was stated to be their Branch Manager. On contacting him, he also failed to attend her calls and disconnected his mobile. Thereafter on 18.9.2008 approached Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, but she could not give any positive response. Such act of opposite party compelled her to lodge registered complaint to opposite party no.1 as well as opposite party no.2.

They were also negligent and deficient in providing services and failed to redress grievance of the complainant. Consequently, for such act, issued registered legal notice dated 10.10.2008, which was received by opposite parties. Instead of providing connection, they avoided liability and sent cheque dated 15.10.2008. Such act of opposite parties caused mental agony, harassment and sufferance to the complainant. Resultantly, had claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and legal expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2. Opposite parties pleaded in reply that complaint is not maintainable. This Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. However, applying for internet connection by the complainant on 11.9.2008 is not denied. When the complainant contacted their Sales Executive Ms. Geetanjali Sharma, she explained difficulty in providing internet connection to the complainant due to technical reasons. It was further made clear that release of the connection could be delayed. When with great difficulty OP-Company was able to provide ‘ADSLTOD’, because capacity was full in the area of residence of the complainant. In the mean time, complainant herself declined for connection as had applied for internet connection of another company.

So, they refunded Rs.562/- to the complainant. ADSLTOD was allotted by the Company to another consumer. After some time, again complainant approached the opposite parties for connection, but Sales Executive told her that ‘ADSLTOD’ which was installed with great difficulty for the complainant by the OP-Company, after her refusal, same stand allotted to another consumer. Her installation charges have already been refunded. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3. Both the parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions.

4. We have heard the arguments addressed by the ld. counsel for the parties, gone through file, scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. Admitted aspects which are born out from pleadings of the parties are that on 11.9.2008 complainant approached opposite party no.1 for installation of internet connection at her residence and consequently on 13.9.2008 deposited installation charges of Rs.562/-. This connection was never installed and subsequently, opposite party vide cheque Ex.C.3 dated 15.10.2008 refunded her installation charges of Rs.562/-.

6. It is out of these admitted aspects that dispute has cropped up whether the opposite party was negligent in not providing the internet connection to the complainant despite receipt of connection charges, or complainant herself refused to take such connection despite making available ‘ADSLTOD’?

7. Outrightly, we may say that in support of defence, no proof is adduced by the opposite party except tendering affidavit RW1/A of Sh.Nitin Gulati, its Legal Consultant, in support of the main reply. No proof is adduced that they were ready to provide the internet connection to the complainant after making available ‘ADSLTOD’ and the complainant herself refused to have connection for the reasons that had already taken internet connection from another organization. Therefore, in absence of any material in support of the defence, this defence deserves to be rejected being false.

8. On the other hand, complainant has brought on record sufficient material to show that when providing of internet connection was not found feasible for installation on 13.9.2008, she should not have been charged for installation charges. She was made to suffer for longer period, compelling her to contact Ms. Geetanjali Sharma as well as other officials of the opposite party including their Manager who failed to provide her connection.

Then was compelled to lodge her complaint with both the opposite parties who also evaded the matter, compelling her to issue legal notice. All sequence of the events have been sworn by her in own affidavit Ex.CW1/A by the complainant. She was also forced to raise her grievance by serving legal notice Ex.C.1 dated 7.10.2008 on both the opposite parties which was sent under postal receipts Ex.C.5 and C6. All sequence as referred in the complaint were mentioned in the notice Ex.C.1 by the complainant. It was after issuance of this legal notice and its receipt by opposite parties that they refunded Rs.562/- to the complainant vide cheque Ex.C.3 dated 15.10.2008.

It means, for a month, opposite party slept and slumbered by not providing internet connection to the complainant. Though had received installation charges from her. If immediately, it was not possible for them to provide internet connection to the complainant, should not have received installation charges of Rs.562/- from her. But receipt of the same shows that they were confident of providing internet connection to her but failed to do so till refund of the amount. Amount was also refunded not at their own will, but on account of having served legal notice Ex.C.1 by the complainant. All this conduct of the opposite party shows that they ditched the complainant, kept her in darkness and evaded providing of internet connection for a month, which certainly in circumstances of the case would amount to deficiency in service on their part. Defence of the opposite party that complainant herself refused connection is false and not born out on the record.

9. Opposite party forced the complainant to serve legal notice, caused mental tension, agony and sufferance and tension to her by not providing internet connection despite promises to do so. For such deficiency in service, we allow this complaint and as a result direct opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.1500/-(Rs. One Thousand and Five Hundreds only) and litigation cost of Rs.1000/-(Rs. One Thousand only) within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order