State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Vivek Kumar Gupta vs 1. M/S Hfcl Infotel Limited on 23 July, 2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal case No.345/2009
Vivek Kumar Gupta S/o late Sh.D.P.Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Kishore brothers, SCF No.9, Sector-20-C,
U.T. Chandigarh.
Appellant
Versus
1.
M/s
HFCL Infotel Limited, B-71, Industrial Area, Phase 7, Mohali 160055 (Punjab)
through its Managing Director;
2.
M/s
HFCL Infotel Limited, SCO No.350-352, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its
Branch Manager.
--Respondents
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 17.4.2009 passed
by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-I,
U.T.Chandigarh.
Argued by : Sh.Ranvir
Sood, advocate for appellant
Sh.Sukhbir Singh, advocate for the respondents.
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Mrs.Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT
23.7.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. This appeal by complainant is directed against the order dated 17.4.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.14 of 2009 filed by him was dismissed.
2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the District Consumer Forum.
3. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the representative/marketing agent of the OPs approached the deceased father of the complainant for installation of landline phone under corporate scheme for the Chandigarh Chemist Association and on their insistence he deposited Rs.550/- vide cheque dated 6.6.2005 which was duly acknowledged by OPs. The complainant and his father visited OPs many times but the telephone was not installed which the OPs were bound to install within 3-7 days. Thereafter, the representative/agent of the OPs again visited the complainant and requested him that if he deposited Rs.560/- more, then the telephone would be installed within 2-3 days and the earlier amount of Rs.550/- would be adjusted in the coming monthly bills.
The complainant deposited the said amount in cash which was acknowledged by OPs on the Subscriber Agreement Form (SAF). However, despite that the telephone was not installed. The complainant then served a legal notice dated 10.10.2008, but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.
4. The case of OPs before the District Forum was that Sh. D.P. Gupta had filled up a form for a telephone connection but as there was no feasibility for installation of the connection, so immediately it was informed to him that the connection could not be installed and the refund was also sent to him but he refused to accept the cheque. It was pleaded that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer because the initial deposit was made by his father and the subsequent deposit was made by Chandigarh Chemist Association. It was further pleaded that on receipt of the legal notice its reply alongwith draft of Rs.1,100/- was sent which the complainant refused to accept. However, OPs after filing reply & evidence did not turn up and therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and hearing the counsel for parties came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and dismissed the complaint. Still dissatisfied, complainant has come up in this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully. It was contended by the learned counsel for appellant/complainant that the complainant had deposited Rs.550/- vide receipt No.51463 dated 6.6.2005 for installing new telephone connection but OPs did not bother to install the telephone. The representative of OPs again approached the complainant in the year 2008 and asked him to deposit the amount for installing the telephone within 2-3 days. At that time also OPs were not clear about the feasibility or non-feasibility of the connection and received Rs.560/- in cash and got filled form No.01704479 dated 10.3.2008. He further contended that the complainant had deposited Rs.1110/- whereas OPs alleged to have issued demand draft of Rs.1100/- which was never received by complainant and no interest was paid on the said amount. However, these contentions have been repelled by the learned counsel for OPs who stated that earlier the complainant was informed about the non-feasibility of the area for installing the landline connection and refund was sent through cheque which was refused by the complainant.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above contentions of parties and found that there is no dispute about deposit of Rs.1110/-
with OPs for getting installed the landline telephone connection. It is proved on record that the complainant was sent intimation vide letter dated 13.3.2008 that the connection could not be installed as the DP was full in that area. It is also proved on record that thereafter OPs sent two cheques of Rs.560/- and Rs.550/- to the complainant through registered letter which he refused to accept. This aspect has not been controverted by the complainant. Thus ,the District Forum rightly exonerated OPs from the allegation of deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint. Accordingly the appeal, being devoid of any merit , is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8. However, before parting with this order, in the given facts and circumstances as discussed above, it is directed that OPs shall once again send the demand draft of the amounts deposited with them by the complainant together with interest thereon @ 9% p.a. from the date of its receipt till the date of filing of complaint, through registered post within 15 days from the date copy of the order is received. It is expected that complainant would accept the demand draft, if so sent to him by OPs. In case OPs fail to abide by the above direction, they would be liable for being punished under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
Sd/-
Announced ( Justice Pritam
Pal)(Retd.)
20 th July,2010
President
Sd/- (Mrs.Neena Sandhu)
Member
*Js