Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/13/837

Muralidhar V Desai "Sri. Benka" - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anubandha Services (Authorized Airtel DTH Service Franchise) - Opp.Party(s)

Inperson

17 May 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 22.04.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 17.05.2018

 

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.837/2013

DATED THIS THE17^thMAY OF2018

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

	Complainant/s	V/s	Opposite party/s
	Muralidhar.V.Desai, “Sri Benaka”, No.24, Basaveshwara Colony, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-5670 097. In person	1	Anubandha Services (Authorized Airtel DTH Service Franchise) C44/1, 1st A Cross, 1st Main Road, PIE 1st Stage, Bengaluru-560 058. Represented by its Manager In person
		2	Airtel DTH, BharathiTelemedia Ltd., No.56/4, Sharada Towers, Nandidurga Road, Benson Town, Bangalore-560 046. Rep by its Authorized Representative. By Adv.B.J.Mahesh

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

1.       This complaint has been filed by the Complainantas against the Opposite Partiesjointly and severally directing to pay Rs.1,15,299/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from this date till realization of the paymentand to grant such other reliefs deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that the Complainant had initially subscribed for the Airtel DTH service through its authorized Franchise vide receipt No.2353 and Customer ID No.300418801 dt.17.8.2011 and remitted a sum of Rs.2900/- for the package of one year plan subscription. The said package was valid for one year from 17.8.2011. However, the 1^st Opposite Party insisted for recharge of the said package for an identical period one week before the expiry period of 16.8.2012. The Complainant had ignored early termination of the service by one week without suspecting any malafide intention on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant submits that even though the package was valid upto 16.8.2011, at the behest of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant had recharged the said DTH service of Airtel for one year by remitting an amount of Rs.3450/- vide Receipt No.6348 dt.12.8.2012. As per the said contract, the DTH service was available for one year from 12.8.2012 to 11.8.2013. While that being the fact, the 2^nd Opposite Party had abruptly disconnected the DTH service at about 900 hours on 12.4.2013 in violation of the terms of the contract. Subsequently on the same day, i.e. on 12.4.2013, the Complainant had tried several times to contact the 1^st Opposite Party on telephone numbers 080-41170916 and 28390540 that is provided in the receipt but was not able to establish contact. Thereafter, telephonically contacted the local customer care representative of 2^nd Opposite Party on 080-44448080 and informed about abrupt disconnection of DTH service. However, there was no solace to the said grievance. Sensing this from the vocal response of customer care personnel, the Complainant had forwarded tow e-mails to the 2^nd Opposite Party narrating the above fact and giving 24 hours ultimatum to resolve the issue. In the said e-mails, the 2^nd Opposite Party was also cautioned that in the event of non-restoration of DTH service, the Complainant would be constrained to lodge a complaint with the Forum. At about 1900 hrs on 12.4.2013, the Complainant received a call on his cell from the customer care of 2^nd Opposite Party enquiring the nature of complaint etc., which was explained on couple of occasions during afternoon hours on the same day.The entire trauma was narrated to the caller, who had concluded the call by promising that he would get back after examining the whole issue. However, neither there is any communication from the Opposite Parties nor restoration of DTH service till date. The Complainant submits that despite remitting of legitimate service charges for usage of DTH service, the Complainant and his family members were left high and dry without any recourse to their right of entertainment, that too when the whole country was glued to the TV sets viewing IPL telecast. The Complainant and his family were also deprived of their right to view the political activity through News as the Election Commission had announced date of election to the Karnataka State sequel to which many interesting political activities have stirred up in the state. Left with no alternative, the Complainant had approached Tata Sky, another DTH service provider on 16.4.2013 and subscribed for DTH service by remitting a sum of Rs.5299/- afresh for a period of one year. Despite having recharged for the said service which is valid up to 11.8.2013, the Complainant was forced to undergo untold hardship and subjected to subscribe for another service provider. The Opposite Parties have willfully committed deficiency in their service.  In view of the facts stated supra, it is most requested to take cognizance of the deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties and award following compensation:

a) Refund the subscription amount incurred for availing the services of Tata sky DTH service amounting to                                          Rs.5229/-

b) Compensation for mental agony & humiliation             Rs.1,00,000/-

c) Legal and other expenses                                                  Rs.10,000/-

                                                          Total                              Rs.1,15,299/-

Hence, this complaint.

3.Notices were ordered issue to the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 who did appear and filed the common version denying the allegations made by the Complainant against them.

4.       The sum and substance of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party are that the Complainant is Airtel DTH customer since 19.2.2011 and he is availing Airtel DTH services for more than 2 years and all these days, never had any service issues.  The Complainant initially took Airtel DTH South Economy Sports Package 6 months offer plan. This subscription ended on 17.8.2011.  The executive of the Opposite Party contacted the Complainant to renew the subscription and explained him about other packages of Airtel DTH and finally customer decided to take South Mega Package whose subscription amount was Rs.325/- per month, at this price 1 year package price would have been 325 x 12=3900/- where as we got this to customer at a discounted price of Rs.2900/- (Rs.1000 less) and also promised him 1 year extended warranty. The subscription ended on 12.8.2012. The executive of the Opposite Party contacted the Complainant to renew the subscription and explained him about the change in package rates for his packages. The Complainant had agreed to renew the south mega package with the package price of Rs.383/- per month. The cost of subscription for one year would have been 383 x 12= Rs.4596/- and the Opposite Party offered the customer one year package for Rs.3450/- (Rs.1146 less) plus the Opposite Parties also promised one year extended warranty in the same amount. The subscription was supposed to have ended on 12.8.2013. As pointed out by the Complainant, the connection got disconnected on 12.4.2013. This happened due to offer being not reflected in customer account. The Opposite Party agrees with the Complainant that his connection got disconnection on 12.4.2013. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant tried to contact the 1^st Opposite Party, but failed to establish contact. He then contacted the representative of the 2^nd Opposite Party, customer care executive and informed about the abrupt disconnection of DTH service.  The Complainant then, is not happy with the solution offered from customer care executive then, mailed to representative of 2^nd Opposite Party and writes about the disconnection on 12.4.2013 instead of 12.8.2013 and warns the Opposite Party if no remedial action is initiated, the Complainant would approach Consumer Forum. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant would have recharged a minimum amount of Rs.100/- and got his services resumed in any of the outlets available near his residence. Later he could have got in touch with 1^st Opposite Party to resolve his issue. The Complainant ignores the small but very important piece of suggest and got services of his connection resumed. In the ultra-modern era of communication and vast subscriber base of Airtel, Airtel has devised inbuilt mechanisms to alert the subscriber by sms on registered mobile, on the STB (Set Top Box) and mail id. In this case also the Complainant surely would have received the alerts about the due date. The Complainant chooses to ignore these alerts. Theabove points indicate that the Complainant had failed to reach the 1^st Opposite Party and register his complaint to resolve the issue thereby depriving the 1^st Opposite Party’s right to solve the issue immediately and also notably Complainant never faced any issue of services throughout his period of 2 years and 2 months. There is no single incident of failure of services during the entire 2 years and 2 months of DTH services to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant failed to register the complaint either at customer care or at Anubandha Services and denied the right of giving services to Complainant and decided in hurry to take connection from another service provider.The Complainant’s claim for compensation of Rs.1,15,299/- is not justified. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite Party. On this ground and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.       The 2^nd Opposite Party has filed his version and stated that the dispute raised by the Complainant is not maintainable before this Forum. Since the dispute raised by the Complainant is between the subscriber and telecom service provider, the remedy available for the Complainant is u/s 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which provides for adjudication of dispute under the provisions of Arbitration Act, on this count itself, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant was the subscriber of the Opposite Parties with respect to the DTH connection provided by this Opposite Party through 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant had initially took the “Airtel DTH South Economy Sports package” 6 months offer plan on 19.3.2011 which was valid till 17.8.2011. Further, after expiry of the said package, the Complainant has renewed the package for one more year by paying a sum of Rs.3450/-. Though the actual value of the said pack was Rs.4596/-, the Complainant was given a discount of Rs.1,146/- by the Opposite Parties. However, the connection got disconnected on 12.4.2013 with prior intimation to the Complainant, as the offer of one year was not reflected in the account of the Complainant. When the Complainant contacted the customer care service, he was advised to recharge a minimum amount of Rs.100/- and get the services resumed. However, for the reasons best known to the Complainant, he has not done so. Even after the disconnection of the service on 12.4.2013, this Opposite Party has not received any complaints from the Complainant. Had the Complainant lodged/recorded a complaint by calling the toll free number, the Opposite Party would have acted upon recording such complaint. But the Complainant within 4 days of disconnection has opted for another service provider as informed by him. There is no willful negligence or default on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant has used the services of the Opposite Parties without any complaint for 2 years and 2 months, that too was offered with good discounts. The alleged difficulty to the Complainant is not due to any willful negligence on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Hence, the Complainant is not entitled for any reliefs. On this ground and other grounds, prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.The Complainant to substantiate his case, filed his affidavit evidence and the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 have filed their affidavit evidence. None of the documents being marked on behalf of the Complainant and as well as the Opposite Parties. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. Heard both sides.

6.       The points that arise for our consideration are:

          1) Whether the Complainant is the Consumer comes under the 

definition of section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act?

2) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the 

part of the OPs, if so, whether heis entitled for the relief sought

for?

 

          3) What Order?

 

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

 

Point No.1 :Affirmative

Point No.2 :Partly affirmative

Point No.3: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

          8. POINT NO.1:    The Complainant has filed this instant case as against the Opposite Parties in respect of their deficiency of service in respect of Airtel DTH service of Airtel. The 2^nd Opposite Party has taken the specific contention that the complaint filed by the Complainant is not maintainable in view of 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act as he ought to have availed the remedy by invoking arbitration. We have placed reliance on the contents of the 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act which related to in respect of telephone bills. In the instant case, though the Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3450/- towards recharge for one year from 12.8.2012 to 11.8.2013,but the 2^nd Opposite Party had abruptly disconnected the DTH service at about 900 hours on 12.4.2013 in violation of the terms of the contract. But it was happened due to offer being not reflected in customer account.When such being the facts, the contention taken by the Opposite Party has no legs to stand. Accordingly, we answer this Point in the affirmative holding that the Complainant is a Consumer comes under the definition of 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

          9.POINT NO.2:     It is not in dispute that the Complainant’s package was valid upto 16.8.2011, at the behest of the 1^st Opposite Party, he had recharged the DTH service of Airtel for one year by remitting an amount of Rs.3450/- vide Receipt No.6348 dt.12.8.2012 and the said recharge for one year was from 12.8.2012 to 11.8.2013. It is also not in dispute that the 2^nd Opposite Party had abruptly disconnected the DTH service on 12.4.2013 in violation of the terms of the contract stated supra. But the reasons assigned by the Opposite Parties are that this happened due to offer being not reflected in the customer account. Hence, they agree with the Complainant that his connection was disconnected on 12.4.2013. In our considered view, this itself is negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have stated that if the Complainant could have been informed or else lodged the complaint in the customer care, it would have promptly acted upon by recharging minimum amount of Rs.100/- and got his services resumed in any of the outlets available near his residence. But the Complainant had hurriedly approached Tata Sky, another DTH service provider on 16.4.2013 and subscribed for DTH service by remitting a sum of Rs.5299/-. Anyhow, the Opposite Parties have admitted in respect of disconnection on 12.4.2013 though the validity was till 11.8.2013. In this context, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.3450/- for the DTH services of Airtel for one year is to be taken into consideration, for month, it comes to Rs.287.5/-. The valid period for time is for about 5 months. Hence, Rs.287 x 5=1437.5/- rounded off to Rs.1500/- is to be paid to the Complainant with compensation of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.1000/- by the Opposite Parties No.1 and2, we hope ends of justice would meet sufficiently. Accordingly, we answer the Point No.2 in the affirmative.

          10.     POINT NO.3:In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed in part. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- and Rs.1000/- being compensation, to be paid to the Complainant within 6 weeks from the receipt of this Order. Failing which, it carries interest at 6% p.a. till its realization. Cost of litigation is fixed at Rs.1000/-.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the open forum on 17^thMay2018).

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER	(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

 

         

 

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

Muralidhar V Desai, who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc-1	Original receipt No.2353 dt.17.8.2011 for Rs.2900/-
Doc-2	Original receipt No.6348 dt.12.8.2012 for Rs.3450/-
Doc-3	Print out of E-mails addressed to OP 2 dt.12.4.2013
Doc-4	Acknowledgement for having read the e-mails by OP 2
Doc-5	Copy of subscription confirmation for Tata Sky DTH

 

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

Vijay KumarBidari, Managerwho being the Opposite Party-1 was examined.

Jayanth.M.C., Officer-Legal who being the OP -2 was examined.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OPs

Doc-1		Copy of the receipts
Doc-2		Copy of the E-mails
Doc-3		Copy of all service requests
Doc-4		Copy of the log and notes
Doc-5		Copy of the inquiry about the cash back offer
Doc-6		Copy of the Complainant’s call was transferred to senior level executive
Doc-7		Copy of the price of the package
	(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER		(S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT