DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 37 of 2022

 

Pritam Deb

S/O- Sri Habul Deb,

West Joynagar, Dashamighat,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799001. ..............Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Opposite Party : Sri Malay Dutta,

 

F I N A L    O R D E R  

1. Pritam Deb here-in-after called as the “Complainant” has filed this complaint against the O.P. alleging inter alia that he paid Rs.1500/- + Rs.1500/- in total Rs.3000/- for installation of Jio fibre connection with effect from 11.01.2022. However, that day the connection was not installed and on enquiry Sri Sagar Deb, Sales person intimated that it would take sometime. As such the complainant decided to cancell one connection out of 2  and forwarded a mail and it was refunded. However, one SMS was forwarded that his connection will be installed on 12.01.2022. Accordingly, on that day team of technician visited his house but informed that long wire would require and connection would not be installed that day. On 13.01.2022 another message was received that due to technical reasons the Jio connection was cancelled. On 27.01.2022 the complainant enquired only to be ignore. Hence, this complaint. 

2. The O.P. submitted written objection and in para- 2 pleaded that the customer location must be in close proximity to the nearest Fibre Excess Terminal and can not be more than approximately 200 meters. In para- 4(2) the O.P pleaded that the complainant mentioned his address as 104 Pashchim Joynagar Para, Ward No. 34 and 35, P.O. Agartala but at the time of installation requested to install such connection at the address of West Joynagar, Dashamighat near Mahabir Club, Manik Dhar Gali, Agartala. Hence, such requested address was different as the distance was more than 250 meters from the nearest Fibre Excess Terminal and not within serviceable area. This fact was informed to the complainant on 12th January, 2022 itself i.e., within 48 hours from the booking of the orders.

2.1 The O.Ps pleaded in para- 2 (4) and 2(7) that slight variation of distance may cause a lot of difference and cause hamper of connection as google location may show one address whereas actual physical location may be slightly different.

3. Both the parties submitted evidence and documents.   

4. Vide order dated 11.11.2022 this Commission hearing the O.P. fixed the case for judgment as the complainant prayed for adjournment but did not move the adjournment petition. However, the complainant preferred a Revision Petition and Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 28.04.2023 in RP No.03/2022 was pleased to remand the case with a direction to dispose the case after hearing argument. 

 

5. After hearing argument the following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

 

DISCUSSION   AND   DECISON:-

6. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

6.1 We consider the written argument submitted by the complainant. The issues raised by the O.P. in Para- 2 and 7 are very much technical. The complainant has not in able to discard such plea. From the application form submitted by the complainant we find that the complainant prayed for connection in Pashchim Joynagar address but later on since the complainant requested for installation at different address which is more than 200 meters from Fibre Excess Terminal it could not be possible for the O.P. to extend the connection. Further, the complainant initially booked for 2 connections but later on cancelled one connection for which the amount of Rs.1500/- was refunded immediately. Further, even if, the connection was supposed to install on 11.01.2022 technical team of the O.P. responded on 12.01.2022 that it was not possible to give such connection as admitted in Para- 8 of the complaint petition and on the next date on 13.01.2022 his booking was cancelled. As such the plea of the O.P. that since the actual address for installation of the connection was changed by the complainant it would not possible to give such connection is a probable and acceptable plea for which we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Such change of address is proved from the Adharcard of the witness Ashis Chowdhury as submitted by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.

7. Both the points are decided accordingly.

8. In the result the case of the complainant is dismissed, however, without cost. The O.P. shall however, refund the booking amount of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant within 30 days from today. Supply copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA