The district consumer disputes redressal forum has instructed a cable service provider to refund ₹1,650 and pay ₹5,500 to a Sector 15 resident for not providing him cable wire with a set-top box (STB) in 2015.
The forum has directed DS Multimedia Private Limited, Sector 8, Panchkula, to refund ₹1,650 that is the cost of the cable wire and the STB to complainant SP Sharma along with an interest at 9% per annum. Besides, ₹5,500 will be given to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges.
In December 2015, Sharma had applied for a cable TV connection and the opposite party charged ₹1,650 from him. However, they failed to give a cable wire along with the STB. The complainant asked the service provider to give him the cable but all his efforts went in vain as their representative gave him excuses on one pretext or the other.
PENALTY FOR TEMPORARY DISCONNECTION
In January 2019, Sharma asked the payment collector to discontinue the connection on temporary basis as his grandchildren’s examinations were scheduled then. To this, the representative assured him that no charges would be taken from him during the disconnection period. Later in May, when the complainant asked them to continue the services of the cable connection, he was asked to pay ₹300 as penalty along with the amount for resuming the connection. He was also informed that he had to pay charges for the month of February also as the disconnection request was put up in February.
{{/usCountry}}In January 2019, Sharma asked the payment collector to discontinue the connection on temporary basis as his grandchildren’s examinations were scheduled then. To this, the representative assured him that no charges would be taken from him during the disconnection period. Later in May, when the complainant asked them to continue the services of the cable connection, he was asked to pay ₹300 as penalty along with the amount for resuming the connection. He was also informed that he had to pay charges for the month of February also as the disconnection request was put up in February.
{{/usCountry}}Considering the facts, the forum observed that the opposite party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. “The non-appearance of the opposite party despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted,” the forum said.