First Appeal No. 48 of 2014. Case: Kus Infonet Pvt. Ltd. Vs Vivek Bansal. Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 48 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Surjit Singh Chauhan, Advocate and For Respondents: None |
| Judges | Sham Sunder, J. (President), Dev Raj and Padam Pandey, Members |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12, 2, 2(1)(d), 2(1)(d)(ii) |
| Citation | I (2014) CPJ 305 (UT Chd.) |
| Judgement Date | February 18, 2014 |
| Court | Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Dev Raj, Member
-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 9.1.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant). In brief, the facts of the case, are that the complainant provides Online Mobile Recharge from computer/mobile sets for leading Mobile Networks. It was stated that the Opposite Party contacted the complainant, at his office, and after due discussion, both the parties entered into a verbal agreement, according to which, it (complainant) was to buy flexi (stock in telecommunication field) from him (opposite party) against payment, and recharge the mobiles from its website http://retailer.1nefone.co.in/home.aspx. It was further stated that the Opposite Party had been carrying out his business through two firms i.e. M/s. Bansal Enterprises and M/s. D.R. Enterprises and as per its directions, the complainant had been making advance payments in its (opposite party) bank account, maintained with the Punjab National Bank, as well as Oriental Bank of Commerce viz. No. 4075002100003945 and 12854011000086. It was further stated that there were always problems, in recharging of mobiles, as most of the numbers could not be recharged but shown, as recharged, and the balance of the complainant flexi with the opposite party had been deducted. It was further stated that the opposite party failed to furnish the details of recharges, made by him, against the payments made. Resultantly, the complainant could not claim the amounts from his customers. It was further stated that the opposite party abruptly closed the account of the complainant when there was still a credit balance of Rs. 36,198 outstanding against him, as balance of such un-recharged numbers. It was further stated that the complainant tried to contact the opposite party, on phone, but every time, he refused to talk. It was further stated that the complainant issued a legal notice dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure C-1) to the opposite party, but to no avail. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the "Act" only), was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 38,198 along with interest @ 18% per annum, being the credit balance, outstanding against him, pay Rs...
To continue reading
Request your trial