West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/143/2012

MR. NAVLESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AIRTEL DIGITAL T.V. - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2020

ORDER

J U D G E M E N T

 

The complainant’s case in brief is that OP No.1 is a renowned multinational company which deals in providing Digital T.V., connection all over India, and the OP

 

-:2:-

 

 No.2 is the franchisee of OP No.1 at Siliguri, while OP No.3 is the Branch Head of OP No.2, and looks after the affairs of the OP Nos.1 and 2 at Siliguri. 

The complainant, an employee of the Indian Air Force posted at Bagdogra, has an account with the proforma OP No.4 bank at Siliguri. 

At the relevant time, the OP Nos.1 to 3 had given an offer of Economy Sports Pack of Rs.1,590/- to customers to watch the Cricket World Cup Tournament, which was then in progress, and the complainant approached one Mr. Vikash Shukla, an official of OP No.1 to subscribe to the package, and to obtain Airtel D.T.H., Network connection at his residence, and Mr. Shukla sent him the required documents through e-mail.

The complainant, through his ATM Debit Card, paid the sum of Rs.1,590/- to the OPs on 11.03.2011, from his account with the proforma OP No.4, and he was assured that after such payment, the OP Nos.2 and 3 would install dish antenna at his residence, and the D.T.H. Network connection would be activated in his television. 

However, the OPs did not install the dish antenna, nor did they provide the DTH Network connection to the complainant, and his representations to the OPs, demanding extension of such connection, or for refund of Rs.1,590/- were all in vain.

Hence, the complainant filed this case praying that the OPs be directed to refund him the said sum of Rs.1,590/- along with interest, and he prays for some other reliefs as well.

The OP Nos.1 to 3 jointly, and the proforma OP No.4 separately, contest the case by filing written versions dated 04.04.2013, and 21.05.2013 respectively.

The OP Nos.1 to 3 acknowledge that there was an offer of Economy Sports Pack for Rs.1,590/-, and they claim that the said amount of Rs.1,590/- was not credited to their account, and accordingly they could not install the dish antenna, and there is no question of its refund.  They assert that if they had obtained the required payment they would have at once extended the service to the complainant. 

On such ground they pray for dismissal of the case.

The proforma OP No.4 bank submits that the complainant used his debit card to pay Rs.1,509/- through online payment system, and the said sum was debited from his account at the said bank, and it owes no relief to the complainant.     

 

D E C I S I O N

 

Admittedly, the OP Nos.1 to 3 had offered Economic Sports Pack for Rs.1,590/- to customers who were interested in watching the Cricket World Cup Tournament, and the

 

Contd......P/3

Consumer Case No.143/S/2012

-:3:-

 

complainant approached Mr. Vikash Shukla to subscribe to the package, and to obtain Airtel D.T.H. Network at his residence. 

The OPs have claimed that the said Mr. Vikash Sukla is not an official of OP No.1, but he is an employee of Virti-Intractive.com.   

However, it cannot be missed that the complainant has filed copy of an intimation dated 10.03.2011 that he received from vikas shukla, wherein the letterhead is printed as “Payment Link For Airtel DTH”, and in the said letter vikas shukla expressed his great pleasure in the interest shown by the complainant in Airtel Digital Tv, and welcomed him on Airtel DTH network. 

The said letter further mentioned to the effect that after payment of Rs.1,590/- for Economy Sports Pack Offer, AIRTEL DTH network service would be extended free of any charge for installation, and home delivery. 

In the said intimation, it was mentioned that the payment through Debit Card was to be made, at CC Avenue. 

Hence, the credentials of the said letter of vikas shukla, which mentions ‘airtel Digital tv’ underneath his name need not be doubted. 

The complainant has filed a Summary of Accounts issued by the proforma OP No.4 showing that on 11.03.2011 a sum of Rs.1,590/- was credited to the said CC Avenue, from the account of the complainant. 

Further, the proforma OP No.4 has filed a document on 15.03.2013 showing that on 11.03.2011 a sum of Rs.1,590/- was credited to IIN/CC Avenue.co/20 from the account of the complainant.

Hence, the payment made by the complainant in favour of the OPs need not be doubted.   

It is thus evident that there is relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant, and the OPs.

Again, the complainant is a resident of Bagdogra, within Siliguri Sub-Division, and the OP Nos.2 and 3 carry on their business from within Siliguri, and the claim of the complainant is well below Rs.20,00,000/-.

The case is therefore well within the territorial and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum, and its maintainability is not in question.    

Again, it is seen that the complainant has filed copy of e-mail conversation dated 15.03.2011 between him, and one Pinky Rajput of airtel digital TV, which shows that even after four days of the said payment, the said employee viz., Pinky Rajput did not raise any objection regarding non-payment of the said sum of Rs.1,590/-. 

Contd......P/4

Consumer Case No.143/S/2012

-:4:-

 

The OPs have clearly stated in their written version that if they had received the said payment, they would have installed the dish-antenna in no time.

It has already been discussed that the complainant has made out a convincing case about payment of the said sum of Rs.1,590/- through Debit Card to the OPs from his account with the proforma OP No.4. 

Hence, quite clearly there was some deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not providing the required service to the complainant. 

If the OP Nos.1 to 3 claim that the said sum of Rs.1,590/- was not credited to their account by proforma OP No.4, then they should have approached the said proforma OP No.4 to ensure that the sum was properly credited to their account.

It is noted in passing that though proforma OP No.4 submitted in the written version that the complainant paid Rs.1,509/- using his debit card, yet the said figure appears to be an error, and it should have been Rs.1,590/-.           

It is also noteworthy that while the complainant adduced evidence through affidavit of examination in chief dated 13.09.2013, and was cross examined through the questionnaire of the OPs, yet the OPs did not file any evidence, and thus the case of the complainant remains practically uncontroverted. 

It has been held by the Hon’ble National Commission to the effect that, when the complainant’s case is contested in written version, then the parties have to prove their case by evidence, and when the complainant had filed affidavit by way of evidence, and the OPs neither filed any affidavit, nor cross examined the deponents, the allegations of the complainant remained uncontroverted, and in the absence of any counter affidavit, the case of the complainant stood proved. [CPJ 2006 (IV) 213 (NC)].

From the foregoing discussion, it is manifest that the complainant has been able to make out his case convincingly as against the OP Nos.1, 2 & 3, and as they did not extend the required service to him, clearly there was some deficiency of service on their part, and the complainant is entitled to get refund of the said sum of Rs.1,590/- from them. 

Though the complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony he underwent, and Rs.10,000/- on each count of punitive damages, and litigation cost, yet it appears to us that award of compensation of Rs.2,000/-, and litigation cost of Rs.1,500/- will serve the ends of justice. 

Further, it requires no elaboration that the only role of the proforma OP no.4 bank was the payment of the said sum of Rs.1,590/- which the complainant made to the OPs through Debit Card from his account at the said bank, and thus there is no question of granting any relief to the complainant from proforma OP no.4. 

Contd......P/5

Consumer Case No.143/S/2012

-:5:-

 

The case may be disposed of in the light of the foregoing observation.

Hence, it is, 

                        O R D E R E D

that Consumer Case No.143/S/2012, be, and the same is, hereby allowed on contest, in part, with cost of Rs.1,500/- as against the OP nos.1 to 3, and it is dismissed on contest, without cost, as against the proforma OP no.4, since the complainant did not seek any relief against it. 

The OP nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, do pay to the complainant Rs.1,590/- by way of refund of the charges he paid to obtain Airtel DTH Network connection at his residence, along with further sums of Rs.2,000/- by way of compensation, and Rs.1,500/- towards litigation cost, i.e., in all Rs.5,090/-, within 45 days of this order, failing which the award will carry interest at the rate percentage per annum on the sum of Rs.3,590/- from the date of this order, till realisation, and the complainant will be entitled to put the award into execution. 

Copies of the judgment be given to the parties free of cost.