Reliance Big TV
IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/2453/2008
G.Nataraj & G. Nirmala W/o G.Siddanagoud
Sri Raghavendra Stores,
Reliance Big TVReliance Group of Companies, 2nd Floor, A Block,
Reliance Communications Ltd, RCOM
COMPLAINT NO: 2453 OF 2008
1. G. Nataraj ‘Kalyana’, No. 384/A, 6th Block Ist Main, Adarshanagar Arashinakunte Village Bangalore Rural 562123 2. G. Nirmala W/o. G. Siddanagoud ‘Kalyana’, No. 384/A, 6th Block Ist Main, Adarshanagar Arashinakunte Village Bangalore Rural 562123 Complainants
V/S 1. Sri Raghavendra Stores Shop No. 1, New Thakur Complex 8th Mile, T. Dasarahalli Bangalore 560057 Reptd by its Proprietor, M.H. Shanthamma
2. Reliance BigTV Reliance Group of Companies 2nd Floor, ‘A’ Block Reliance Comunications Ltd. Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Thane Belapur Road, Kpar Khairne Navi Mumbai 400709 Reptd by its Chairman Anil Dhirubai Ambani
3. Reliance communications Ltd. RCOM, Reliance Group of Companies 8th Mile, T. Dasarahalli Bangalore 57 Reptd by its Manager / Manging Director Opposite Parties
ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that complainant purchased a ‘big TV’ set from opposite party No. 1 which beared smart card No. 200614401325 on 29.10.2008 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,200/- for one year subscription and informed that service engineer of the opposite party No. 2 company will come and install the entire set within a span of 72 hours. Complainant sent e-mail to opposite party No. 2. Complainants waited till 04.11.2008, but no body either the service engineer of the opposite party No. 2 company nor any of their employee came to get install the said set. Complainants contacted the customer care many times. The complainants were surprised to hear from the customer care that they have cancelled the service of installation for the best reasons known to them. The opposite parties even after lapse of more than 15 days have never come forward to get install the set. They are negligent in their service.
Complainants suffered lot of mental agony. Complainants prayed to direct the opposite parties to get install the big-TV set or to pay back the amount of Rs. 2,200/- and compensation. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1-3 appeared through counsel and defence version filed. On the date of appearance of the opposite parties itself the opposite party gave demand draft for Rs. 2,200/- to the complainant and the complainant accepted the demand draft keeping open the compensation issue to be decided by way of final hearing or disposal.
The opposite parties given a very detailed version denying deficiency in service requesting to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. 4. Arguments are heard. 5. The points for consideration are: “1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be quantum of compensation?” 6. I have gone through the complaint, documents and version. REASONS 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 2,200/- for one year subscription for installation of DTH Service to the Big TV of the complainants. This amount has been received by the opposite parties on 29.10.2008 with an assurance that the set will be installed within 72 hrs. It is also admitted fact that as per the commitment and assurance the opposite parties failed to install DTH service.
The complainant had addressed an e-mail to the opposite parties narrating all facts. It is the defence of the opposite parties that from August 2008 the local cable operators have united together to resist other DTH providers to install their service in the surrounding vicinity at Nelamangala. The franchisee was constrained to lodge a police complaint against the concerned. Under these circumstances it is the case of the opposite parties that they were not in a position to provide DTH service to the complainant and accordingly, it was intimated to the complainants that request was rejected. As per the defence it is clear that in August 2008 the local cable operators resisted DTH providers to install service at Nelamangala.
If this is the case why the opposite parties should accept amount from the complainant on 29.10.2008. The amount has been accepted and commitment was given to the complainant that service will be provided within 72 hrs. But the opposite parties have failed to keep up their commitment and assurance. This is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If local cable operators have taken objections and police complaint is also filed against them. It is problem between the opposite parties and local cable operators. That is nothing to do with the complainant. The opposite parties should have sorted out the problem with the local cable operators and as per the assurance, agreement and commitment the opposite parties should have given DTH service to the complainant since the opposite parties have taken Rs. 2,200/- amount for one year subscription. So under these circumstances the complainant is liable to compensate suitably. It is argued by the learned advocate for the complainant that due to non-installation of DTH service the complainant was not able to view the TV program for about 15 days. Thereby complainants have suffered mentally. The complainant has sought Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. I am of the opinion that this is very exaggerated amount claimed by the complainant. On the facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable compensation could be awarded for deficiency of service. This being a small issue I am of the opinion that grant of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- will meet the ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 8. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.
9. Complainants are also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings.