DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092
Consumer complaint no. - 967/2012
Date of Institution - 23/11/2012
Order reserved on- 26/08/2016
Date of Order - 29/08/2016
In matter of
Rajesh Sharma, adult
S/o – Sh RD Sharma
HN-1/2892, Ram Nagar, Loni Road
Shahdara, Delhi -110032……..…………………..………..…………….Complainant
Vs
1-The Director / Proprietor
Aryan Infrastructure Technology
B-5-6, GF, 20 Feet Road,
Meet Nagar, Delhi-110094
2-The Director / AR
Dish TV India Ltd
B-10, Lawrence Road Industrial Area,
Delhi- 110035 ……………………….………………………………..Respondents
Complainant’s Advocate - Ashish Nigam & Puneet Tandon
Opponent 1&2 Advocate - Ms Roshni Chatarjee
Corum- Sh Sukhdev Singh- President
Dr P N Tiwari - Member
Mrs Harpreet Kaur- Member
Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member
Brief Facts of the case
This case was instituted in Nov 2012 and after notice, many dates of hearing either parties were not present and want of quorum and renovation of Forum’s structure for over two years.
The complainant, a practicing advocate, purchased three Dish TV connections from OP1, one for his parent and two for his children for a sum of Rs 4141/-.OP provided set top boxes and cable for putting connections on 5/11/2012. As per complainant, the connections could not be provided till 09/11/2012. Complainant inquired from OP2 who assured to activate the connections as soon as possible. Two connections were started on 13/11/2012. OP2 informed complainant that due to heavy rush for getting connection due to a scheme by OP2 as few channels would be given free of cost, caused heavy demand and rush. Due to this, some subscriber application forms were not traceable, but it was assured that no fresh form would be required from its customers.
As per complainant, there was delay of 13 days in viewing the channels, their children suffered heavy mental harassment. He further stated that viewing the channel is a basic necessity.
Complainant lodged complaint to OP2 for compensation from OP2 for delay in providing one connection and claimed a sum of Rs 50,000/-besides amount taken for providing third connection.
After scrutiny of complaint, notices were served. OP1 and 2 put their appearance and submitted their written statement and evidences on affidavit. OP stated that there was a delay of 5-6 days as a heavy rush was present due to expiring the dead line of getting all the TV connections digital up to 31/12/2012. OP submitted that complainant took three Dish TV connections on 04/11/2012 vide connections no. As 01517780551, 01517780560 and 01517780561. All the connections were started after delay of 4-5 days due to heavy rush of customers for getting connections. Later all the three connections were started and even before filing this complaint, connections were operating.
OP has also submitted annexure A2 which showed that complainant accepted super platinum package and all the three connections were operating till 07/03/2013. OP also submitted annexure A3 which stated that complainant would be availing 70 channels free of cost for life time, but OP expressed their serious concern for not providing connections on the time but after some time all the three connections were made operable.
Evidences were submitted by the parties on affidavit. Arguments were heard from both the parties. Order was reserved.
We perused all the facts and evidences submitted by the parties. Complainant submitted one subscription form vide no. 19637600dated 08/11/2012 having set top box no. 1216AMBCDO144156.
Taking consideration of facts and evidences on record, it is seen that OP‘s version of not supplying the dish TV connection on the spot was obvious as notification for getting TV channels were digitalized and Govt. had fixed the dead line for installing set top box for single connection.
As far as complainant’s version, that not providing third dish TV connection for few days had caused mental harassment of a sum of Rs 50,000/- to his children. But during argument stage, complainant could not explain the damages to the tune of 50,000/- for his children. Also expressing necessity of viewing channel by his children does not carry any weight to this complaint. Hence this case is devoid of any merit as complainant has failed to prove damages against OPs by even a single merit. So this complaint deserves dismissal. Hence, complaint is dismissed without any cost.
The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the record room.
(Dr) P N Tiwari - Member Mrs –Harpreet Kaur- Member
Shri Sukhdev Singh - President
