VIVEK KUMAR GUPTA Vs. HFCL INFOTEL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(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 Chemists 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 instal 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.