Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/9/2018

Gurutej B.V. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Airtel DTH Services - Opp.Party(s)

In person

05 Sep 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 11.01.2018

                                                      Disposed on: 05.09.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.09/2018

DATED THIS THE 5^th SEPTEMBER OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Gurutej.B.V,

35 years,

F-101, Suraj Ganga

Socrates, Raghuvanahalli,

Near Bayanpaalya Bus Stop, Bengaluru-62.

 

Inperson

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

M/s.Airtel DTH Services,

Bharati Airtel ltd.,

No.55, Divyashree Towers, Bannerghatta Road,  

Bengaluru-76,

Rep. by its Manager

 

By Advocates

M/s.Eash & Eash Associates

 

 

MEMBER: SMT.ROOPA.N.R

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to refund fee collected for defective STB, faulty installation; void the faulty connection; resume the connection with new and fault free internet TV STB, along with all the promised benefits made during initial purchase of the internet TV up-gradation; not to charge or deduct the money for existing annual infinity pack subscription starting 03.10.17 till the date of new and fault free STB is provided; pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards restraining him and his family members from enjoying the DTH services (both infinity pack with HD channels and internet TV up-gradation) for which he had made full and final payment in advance; to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony that he has to go through because of this entire situation with cost.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he has been Airtel DTH customer with ID 3001223042 since 01.08.09 and was using their High Definition (HD) services since 02.12.15 with annual subscription (infinity pack, which costed Rs.5,500/-) since 30.01.17 to 02.10.17. He requested for an up-gradation to internet TV on 01.10.17. The Complainant further submits that, upon his request for up-gradation to internet TV, a technician from Op team visited his place on 02.10.17 and replaced the existing HD Set Top Box (STB) with internet TV STB, and asked him to make the full and final payment of Rs.1500/- towards the activation of new STB. After the payment, new STB was activated, but it failed to perform its duty. After couple of calls to his team from his home, the technician told him the STB had some issues and he assured that the same will be fixed in an hour and the services shall resume. And he was asked to pay Rs.250/- towards installation and demo charges. When he argued that is not correct as neither the installation nor demo was complete, he insisted on payment but denied to provide receipt on acceptance of his payment, and left his home with old HD STB. The Complainant further submits that, when the new STB failed to work, after couple of hours the same technician revisited his place and told him that the STB was a ‘defect piece’ and it was a ‘faulty installation’. This time he took away the new and faulty STB with the pretext of fixing it in next 24 hours, however he failed to return and Complainant was left with no STB. He was literally stripped off all the DTH services. The Complainant further submits that, after rigorous follow-up with Op customer care and reaching out to National consumer helpline (complaint docket number 451984) and PG portal (complaint number MOIAB/E/2017/02618). He was offered with Rs.350/- against validity adjustment after five to seven working days. But failed to provide written justification for the service interruption and tried convincing him verbally. The Complainant further submits that, starting from 02.10.17 onwards he has been stripped of all DTH services and he and his whole family had to pay the price and give up watching television for last 89 days as they were left with no STB. The Complainant further submits that, Op team not only made a ‘faulty installation’ with a ‘defective STB’ for which he was made to pay full and final fee in advance, and denied providing receipt for demo and installation charges until he insisted for it. Also they stripped him off using  HD STB (with annual subscription) for which he had made advance, full and final payment. All this has not just hindered his right to avail their DTH service but also caused exasperating and tiresome mental agony. Hence prays to allow the complaint.

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear and filed version.  The sum and substance of the version of the Op are that, the grievance of the Complainant is with respect to the alleged delay in providing the Airtel TV facility/DTH services to the Complainant. Further Bharti Airtel ltd., has no role to play in providing such services and it is Bharti Telemedia ltd., which is a different entity as such the present complaint filed against Op is not maintainable. The Op further submits that, the Complainant ought to have make his claim against Bharti Telemedia ltd., it is submitted that, this frivolous and vexatious complaint is filed by the Complainant only to harass the Op without there being any deficiency of service or default on its part. In fact prior to approaching this forum, Complainant has shown to have approached a consumer helpline established by the Department of Consumer affairs, Govt., of India which said to have closed the complaint and again Complainant shown to have approached the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and the said authority is also close the case of the Complainant. After exhausting all his remedies with respect to his alleged grievance, now the Complainant has approached this forum. The Op further submits that, the Complainant was having the provision of STB at his residence enabling him to view various TV channels provided by the Op. On 01.10.17 Complainant submitted a request for providing internet TV. Upon receipt of the request the technical personal of the Op visited the place of the Complainant on 02.10.17, has upgraded the STB to internet TV. However before providing a demonstration to the Complainant, the technical personal has found that, there was some technical issue due to which the upgradation was not fully completed as such he has informed the Complainant that, he would swap the box with another android box and further informed that, upon such swapping he would give one more demonstration to the Complainant, for which the Complainant has agreed. However as per the applicable tariff Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of new STP/internet TV. The Op further submits that, since swapping with another android box requires certain approvals as per the policy of the Op it was informed to the Complainant that, the same might take 2 days time for activation. Accordingly the swapping was done on the next day i.e.03.10.17 and upon the process of swapping, the technical personal has called the Complainant seeking his appointment to go to his place for installation of the box and give demonstration. The Op further submits that, after Op taking back the old STB and done the swapping of box for activation of internet TV, at that point of time the Complainant has insisted that unless the activation is done immediately he want his old HD box to be returned, as he cannot wait for 2 days. It is relevant to note that, once the swapping is done through an android box and pending activation of the internet TV, the Op cannot return old STB or make refund of the amount received from the Complainant. nevertheless once swapping is done for activation of internet TV even STB cannot be used as he was using it earlier, before activation of internet TV. The Op further submits that, though the staff of the Op has approached the Complainant the procedure for require for the swapping and activation which would consumer some reasonable time and requested the Complainant to allow them for installation of the box and for providing demonstration, Complainant started demanding the Op to apologise in writing and also to provide monitory benefit. It is relevant to submit that, though there was no mistake or default on the part of the Op as a business policy and also as a goodwill gesture Op has offered the Complainant to provide the monitory benefit of Rs.350/- by way of an adjustment in his DTH account. However the Complainant remained stubborn and insisted for the alleged compensation as well as written apology, which the Op is not obligated to adhere to. Hence, the internet TV box remained with Op. However, if Complainant still want the same to be installed, without any such illegal demand, the Op is ready and willing to install the internet TV box. There was no faulty installation nor Op has received any amount towards demo and installation without providing receipt. Op is not responsible for the alleged mental agony to the Complainant. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A6. The Authorized Signatory of Op filed affidavit evidence. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

 

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by the Op. The undisputed facts which reveal from the pleadings of the parties goes to show that, upon the Complainant’s request for up-gradation to internet TV, a technician from Op team visited his place on 02.10.17 and replaced the existing HD Set Top Box (STB) with internet TV STB, and asked him to make the full and final payment of Rs.1500/- towards the activation of new STB. After the said payment, though new STB was activated, but it failed to perform its duty. Then intimated the said facts to Op’s team and the technician told him that the STB had some issues and he assured that the same will be fixed in an hour and the services shall resume. In this context, the said technician asked to pay Rs.250/- towards installation and demo charges. When argued, he insisted for the payment. Accordingly he paid it but receipt for the acceptance of the said payment was not given. When the new STB failed to work, after couple of hours, the said technician revisited his place and told him that the STB was a ‘defect piece’ and it was a ‘faulty installation’. Hence, took away the new and faulty STB with the pretext of fixing it in next 24 hours. But did not return. When Complainant approached the National consumer helpline, he was offered with Rs.350/- against validity adjustment after five to seven working days from Op. Being not satisfied, Complainant knock the door of this forum to get redress his remedy. Ongoing through the entire contents of the complaint and also version filed by Op, it is evident that, Op has installed STB which was defect piece and also was faulty installation. During the course of argument, Op stated that, it is ready to replace or to refund Rs.1,500/-. In the written arguments also, Op stated that, as per the applicable tariff Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of new STB/internet TV.  When the Complainant, as per the applicable tariff, has already paid a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the cost of new STB/internet TV, but the service rendered by Op found to be defective. In this context, Complainant and his family members suffered in not watching the TV. Hence, we are of the opinion that, if the Op is directed to resume and reinstall the connection with new and fault free internet TV STB, along with all the promised benefits made during initial purchase of the internet TV up-gradation without demanding extra towards installation and demo charges and also without charging or deducting the money for existing annual infinity pack subscription starting 03.10.17 till the date of new and fault free STB is provided, we hope ends of justice would met sufficiently.

 

8. With regard to the other sub-sequential relief for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards restraining the Complainant and his family members from enjoying the DTH services (both infinity pack with HD channels and internet TV up-gradation) for which he had made full and final payment in advance and compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony that he has to go through because of this entire situation were declined to grant in view of ordering the Op to reinstall and resume the new and fault free internet TV. Anyhow we fixed cost of litigation of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed.  

 

          2. Op is directed to resume and reinstall the connection with new and fault free internet TV STB, along with all the promised benefits made during initial purchase of the internet TV up-gradation without demanding extra towards installation and demo charges and also without charging or deducting the money for existing annual infinity pack subscription starting 03.10.17 till the date of new and fault free STB is provided.

         

3. Op is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant being the cost of litigation.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 5^th September 2018).

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Gurutej.B.V, who being the complainant was examined. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Receipt
Ex-A2	Account status
Ex-A3	Emails from 02.10.17 to 09.10.17
Ex-A4	Complaint with National consumer helpline
Ex-A5	PG portal complaint
Ex-A6	Email exchanged with Airtel DTH, Post PG portal

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Siddaveer Chakki, who being the Authorized Signatory of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT