Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/58/2020

Ashima Dutt - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel Bharti DTH Service Provider - Opp.Party(s)

Shiti Jain Dutt Adv.

12 Oct 2020

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	58 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	28.02.2020
Date of Order	:	12.10.2020

 

Ashima Dutt w/o Sh. Arvind Dutt, resident of H.No.2163, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

…..Appellant /Complainant.

Versus

Bharti Airtel Ltd. DTH service provider Plot No.21, Rajeev Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh – 160101 through its Nodal Officer/ Manager/ Authorised Signatory.

                                                …Respondent /Opposite Party.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.

                MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

 

Argued by:

 

Ms. Shiti Jain Dutt, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondent already exparte vide order dated 22.06.2020.

 

PER  PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2020, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (in short ‘the Forum’ only), vide which, it partly allowed Consumer Complaint bearing No.300 of 2019, which reads as under :-

“11.        In view of the above discussion, the complainant has produced cogent evidence to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. We find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Party. Opposite Party is directed :-

(i)     To pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing mental agony and harassment to her.

(ii)    To pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.         This order be complied with by Opposite Party within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Opposite Party shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No. (i) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(ii) above.

 2.            The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the complainant :-

“The facts, in brief, are, Complainant is having one primary and three additional DTH connections of Opposite Party under Customer ID No.3000024415. The Complainant on its last recharge, took the DTH long term plan by making a payment of Rs.4950/- and Rs.3211/- on 13.11.2018. The plan taken was infinite plan (unlimited channels). Suddenly, without any notice, in the first week of March, 2019, the Opposite Party stopped/blocked lot of channels/ HD channels which were operational on all the four connections. When enquired, the Complainant was conveyed that the DTH pack was changed per new TRAI rules and that Opposite Party had credited Rs.891/- to adjust the unused amount and if the Complainant wanted to activate HD Channels, she would have to pay Rs.500/- to Rs.600/- more per month for the same. Even the protracted mails written by the Complainant could not yield the desired results, as the Opposite Party in no condition restore the original long term plan taken by the Complainant. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.”

3.             The Forum noted down the following facts narrated by the Opposite Party to the complaint filed by the complainant :-

“Opposite Party contested the claim of the Complainant and filed its written statement admitting the basic facts of the case. It has been pleaded that new tariff regulation from TRAI has been implemented from 01.02.2019. Opposite Party is bound by the terms & conditions of the TRAI and the Complainant has been given the benefit of adjustment of the balance amount for unused period and Rs.891.94/- were adjusted for unutilized package in the account of the Complainant. Thus, pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint” 

4.              The complainant, filed rejoinder to the written statement of the Opposite Party, wherein it reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written version of the Opposite Party. 

5.             The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard Counsel for the appellant/complainant, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.

9.           Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Forum has committed a grave error by not considering the document Annexure C-4, which clearly stipulated that the plan taken by the complainant was valid till 08.09.2019 and not till 17.05.2019 as mentioned in the impugned order, as such, prayed for compensation till 08.09.2019. She has further submitted that the Forum was not considering the payment receipt of Rs.7626/- (Annexure A-1) which was valid till 08.09.2019. She has further submitted that inspite of payment of Rs.7626/-, the complainant was able to view not even half of the channels which were being viewed with the original annual plan taken by the complainant. She prayed for modification of the impugned order and allowing the appeal filed by the complainant.

10.           The respondent/Opposite Party was served through email but it did not appear, as such, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 22.06.2020.

11.           After going through the evidence and record of the case, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter.

12.           The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Forum has rightly passed the impugned order.  Annexure C-1 is a copy of Customer Details & Balance Summary. From this document, it is proved that the complainant paid Rs.3211/- & Rs.4950/- on 13.11.2018 to avail the services of the Opposite Party. It is also mentioned in the said document that it was valid till 17.05.2019. It is also, no doubt, true that the plan was suddenly changed by the Opposite Party in March, 2019 and the complainant given the benefit of adjustment of the balance amount for unused period and Rs.891.94/- were adjusted for unutilized package in the account of the complainant. Annexure C-2 is a Press Release by the TRAI regarding implementation of New Regulatory Framework for Broadcasting and Cable Services, in which, para No.8 reads thus: -

“8.   The Authority further reiterates that subscribers who have taken long term packs will continue to avail the services for the contracted period. However, they have freedom to choose the channels of their choice under the new regulatory framework and in case if they exercise this option, money for the remaining period shall be adjusted for their future use.”

It is also the admitted fact that neither the consent of the complainant was taken by the Opposite Party for tariff plan nor any services were provided for the contracted period and the plan of the complainant was terminated, which was valid till 17.05.2019, as per Annexure C-1. Even learned District Commission has already examined the matter i.e. the act of the respondent/Opposite Party for illegally and arbitrarily terminating the original plan in March, 2019, which was otherwise valid upto 17.05.2019 and held that such an act by the Opposite Party tentamounted to deficiency in service and accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed with the relief, as mentioned in para No.1 of this judgment. Moreover, the contention now taken by the appellant/complainant for refund of Rs.7626/- towards the payment of bill from May, 2019 till September, 2019 does not warrant any merit, since she has actually paid for the DTH services availed by her and the said prayer was never raised in the original complaint.

13.           With regard to plea raised by the appellant/complainant for granting compensation till 08.09.2019, as per Annexure C-4, is concerned, a bare perusal of Annexure C-1 i.e. customer details, we find that there is a clear cut mention about the validity date i.e. 17.05.2019 and as per Annexure C-4, the date for the payment of the bill is mentioned as 08.09.2019. Therefore, the appellant cannot come to the conclusion that the plan was valid upto 08.09.2019.

14.           Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the concerned Commission, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. Hence, the appeal filed by the complainant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands dismissed, with no order as to costs. The impugned order is upheld.

15.           Certified copies of order be given to the parties/their Counsel free of charge.

Pronounced.

12.10.2020                                                              Sd/-

[RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH  K. ARYA)

MEMBER

rb