Disposed on: 23-07-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.622/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 23rd JULY 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> <br /> Ashok Kumar.S.R. (Advocate)<br /> S/o. Rangegowda, aged about 31 years,<br /> Rajshekar Building, No.71/1, 1st floor,<br /> Renukadevi Street,<br /> Chikkabidrakallu, Bangalore <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> Opposite parties: - <br /> <br /> 1. The Manager, <br /> Girias Investment (P) Ltd,<br /> No.34/1, 1st Main Road, <br /> Gandhinagar,<br /> Bangalore, <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Reliance Big TV Ltd,<br /> H Block, 1st Floor,<br /> Khirubhai Ambani <br /> Knowledge city,<br /> Navi Mumbai-400 710<br /> India <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties [hereinafter called as OPs for short) are that, he purchased a ONIDA ULTRA SLIM 300 TELEVISION for Rs.8550/- on 15-10-2009 from the 1st OP. Who had offered free reliance BIG TV connection and one month of Silver pack free. The 1st OP had also given a scratch coupon card and advised to call the 2nd OP and furnished the scratch coupon to get free reliance big TV connection. That he accordingly called the 2nd OP who assured to provide service within 24 hours by connecting free reliance big TV. But the 2nd OP has not given that service. That he called on 2nd OP to provide service as promised to both Ops in not keeping up the promise and have caused deficiency in their service therefore has prayed for a direction to them to give connection free reliance big TV connection and also to pay damages of Rs.90,000/- and to award costs. <br /> <br /> 2. The 1st OP was duly served has remained absent is set exparte. The 2nd OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version admitting the purchase of TV by the complainant and offer of one month Silver pack with a coupon card subject to terms and conditions. This OP has also admitted that on the complainant calling the customer care they had agreed to process the installation. It is further stated that in order to provide such service they have engaged service of a contractor for installation of DTH service etc. and when the complainant had called customer care on 28-10-2009 and placed the request for installation they instructed their agency to do the installation as desired by the complainant but they learn from their representatives when their agent contacted the complainant, the complainant failed to give an appointment stating that he was busy and postponed his meeting the agent for installation. When their agency contacted the complainant again, he had told them it was not possible for him to allow the OP’s agents for installation until 30-10-2009. Therefore stated that because of this non co-operation of the complainant service could not be provided and stated that the service as per the coupon given to the complainant was valid till 30-10-2009 and that period since expired, they did not provide DTH facilities and denying any deficiency at their end has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the 2nd OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of the cash bill for having purchased a TV, then a scratch coupon card, with the copy of the legal notice. The 2nd OP has produced a copy of telephone call details. Counsel for both the parties has filed written arguments. We have perused the entire documents and written arguments on considering those materials following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that OPs have caused deficiency in their service in not giving connection of free reliance big TV?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 4. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the affirmative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Answer on Point No.1: On considering the complainant grievances and the stand of 2nd OP their dispute is only regarding Ops not providing DTH connection to the Big TV purchased by the complainant. The 2nd OP admitted to had promised to provide such service of providing free DTH connection to the complainant. <br /> <br /> The complainant has contended that if he had approached the Ops several times and the 2nd OP in specific to give connection of Big TV through DTH service but the 2nd OP did not provide this service as promised, whereas the 2nd OP in his version and also affidavit evidence has stated that the complainant had called their customer care on 28-10-2009 placed request for installation but when the their men or agents approached the complainant, the complainant did not co-operate with them to extend the service. The Op has even produced a copy of call details to prove that on 28-10-2009 they contacted the complainant for providing DTH service but the complainant had not responded. The complainant has not denied this allegation and rebutted this document also. The complainant in the affidavit evidence filed in para no.7 in a way has admitted two communications sent by the 2nd OP calling on him on 28-10-2009 and 29-10-2009 for providing service. He by not disputing these dates is only contending that the 2nd OP has not produced documents for having contacted him on 15-10-2009 to 30-10-2009. Further the complainant has also not denied specifically the allegations of Ops in this complaint had told the agents of the 2nd OP that he will not be available till 30-10-2009. Further it is found from the copy of the scratch card produced by the complainant that the benefit of complimentary offer would be available for a period of 30 days only from the purchase and after expiry of 30 days, the purchaser will not be entitled for the complimentary benefits. However in this case, in the course of arguments the counsel for the 2nd OP fairly conceded though there was non co-operation from the complainant and time limit has expired. The 2nd OP is willing to give DTH connection to the complainant TV. In view of the offer made by the counsel for the 2nd OP, we propose to direct the 2nd OP to extend the facility and we dispose of the complaint. Accordingly and pass the following order: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed in part. The 2nd OP is directed to give DTH connection to the TV of the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which, the 2nd OP shall pay damages of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. In the circumstance of the case, both the parties are directed to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd July 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />