KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 65/2009 JUDGEMENT DATE : 11-02-2010 PRESENT: SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPELLANT Tata Sky Limited, 3rd Floor, Bombay Dyeing, A.O. Building, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai – 400 025 Through Mr. Cyrus K Elavia Vice President – Legal Services. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. R. Sreeram & Sri. J.S. Sabu) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. A.J. Poulose, Arackal House, Mambra, Karukutty P.O., Ernakulam – 683 576. 2. Digitech, Karukutty P.O., Ernakulam – 683 576. JUDGMENT SHRI.S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The second opposite party in CC 146/07 is under directions to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,999/- and to take back the ‘Digicomp’ and also to pay Rs. 500/- as costs. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the second opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. The complainant has approached the Forum stating that on 12-11-2006 he had joined as a subscriber of the second opposite party by purchasing equipment worth Rs. 3,990/- from the first opposite party. It was as per a special introductory offer to pay Rs. 200/- per month for 3 months that the connection was taken. Complainant has also stated that the first opposite party had assured the complainant that he will be provided with a super saver package by the first opposite party and inspite of the said assurance, nothing was done. The complainant has further alleged that the subscription was unilaterally increased from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 300/- and the opposite parties were charging 18% interest for the arrears. Subsequently, the first opposite party deactivated the service of the complainant and hence the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 4,704/- as compensation. 3. In the version of the first opposite party it was contended that the equipments and accessories were supplied by the second opposite party and that the packages were also supplied by them. Contending that there was no deficiency of service, the first opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The second opposite party also filed version which contained the contentions that the complainant had purchased the Digicomp worth Rs. 2,999/- from the 1st opposite party and the special offer was only for a period of 3 months and thereafter the rate was Rs. 300/- per month. It was also submitted by them that the second opposite party had the regular super saver package of Rs. 300/- per month and if the subscriber failed to maintain the minimum balance amount at the end of grace period of 3 days, the service was liable to be deactivated. The second opposite party further submitted that there was no deficiency of service on their part and the complainant was not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A6. Apart from filing the versions, the opposite party did not tender any evidence. It was based on the evidence adduced by the complainant that the impugned order was passed by the Forum below. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant/second opposite party has vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below was without appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case. It is his very case that the complainant had taken the connection under the special introductory offer scheme and the scheme offered the reduced rates only for 3 months. He has submitted that the connection was taken on 12-11-2006 and as such after the expiry of 3 months period; the complainant was liable to pay the rates as demanded by the opposite parties. The learned Counsel further argued that the complainant had purchased the Digicomp for a price of Rs. 2,999/- and it was the property of the complainant and further that the Digicomp (Set Top Box) did not suffer any defect and the Forum ought to have considered this aspect while passing the order. He had also submitted that the complainant did not have any contractual relationship with the second opposite party and in such a case the Forum’s direction to take back the Digicomp on payment of the amount paid to the first opposite party cannot be upheld. It is also his case that the second opposite party had only one package at the time of providing service to the complainant and that when the introductory offer was over, the second opposite party could continue the connection only under the regular super saver package of Rs. 300/- per month. Relying on Ext.A5, he submitted before us that the rate of Rs. 300/- per month was informed to the complainant and also that the complainant was given one more month towards the special introductory offer price. The learned Counsel advanced the contention that deactivation was due to the reason that the complainant did not have sufficient balance in his account and in such a circumstance the deactivation by the opposite parties was justified by him. Thus, he canvassed for the position that the order of the Forum below is perse illegal and liable to be set aside. 7. On getting notice from this Commission, the first respondent/complainant appeared in person and submitted that the opposite parties were not justified in discontinuing the service as he was under the impression that the opposite parties would continue the service as per the assurance made by them. He had also submitted that at preset he is not having the connection and he is ready to give back the Digicomp (Set Top Box) on payment of the amount. However, this proposal was not accepted by the appellant/second opposite party and the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Forum below. 8. On hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant and on perusing the records, we find that the complainant had taken the connection of the opposite parties on 12-11-2006 under the special introductory offer of payment of Rs. 200/- per month for 3 months. He has also purchased the Digicomp (set top box) from the first opposite party. Service was admittedly availed by the complainant for 3 months and thereafter he was under the impression that the opposite parties would be continuing the service at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month itself. However, it is the case of the appellant that the special introductory offer was only for a limited period and thereafter the complainant was liable to pay the increased rate of Rs. 300/- per month. It is also noted that by Ext.A5 dated 27-02-2007, the complainant was informed of the fact that the super saver package is effective from 12-03-2007 by paying Rs. 300/- per month and the customers would be given many other chances also. On a perusal of the entire records, we do not find anything forthcoming to show that the special introductory offer of Rs. 200/- per month was valid for an endless period. It is made clear that after the special introductory offer, the customers would be liable to pay the regular charges, which in the instant case is Rs. 300/- per month. It seems that the complainant was under the impression that he would be getting the continued service on payment of Rs. 200/- per month itself. Ext.A5 is clear that they have increased their rate to Rs. 300/- per month. The Forum has observed that Ext.A2 is in very small print and is unable to be understood. On a perusal of Ext.A2, we find that though small print is used, it is readable and there is a subscription contract form along with the terms and conditions contained in Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 the package shown is special introductory offer. It goes without saying that special introductory offer cannot continue for a long period and especially when the period is limited, the subscribers would be liable to pay the amount directed to be remitted by the service provider after the offer period. In the instant case, the Forum below has directed the second opposite party/appellant to take back the Digicomp (Set Top Box) and to pay Rs. 2,999/-, the value. On a perusal of the records, we find that the said amount is received by the first opposite party towards the value of the instrument (Digicomp). It is seen paid to the first opposite party. No manufacturing defect or any other defects are attributed by the complainant in the matter of Digicomp. In such a circumstance, we do not find it proper to direct the second opposite party to return the amount and take back the instrument. Taking all the aspects into consideration, we find that the order of the Forum below is liable to be set aside. We do so according. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 31-10-2008 in CC No. 146/07 of CDRF, Ernakulam is set aside. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER Sr. | 
