Punjab

Sangrur

CC/468/2016

Rajiv Singla - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ashwani Kumar - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ankit Goyal

21 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR. 

                                                           

                                                Complaint No.  468

                                                Instituted on:    27.07.2016

                                                Decided on:       21.12.2016

 

Rajiv Singla S/o Shri Prem Sagar, resident of Ward No.7-A/62, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Dhuri, Tehsil Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Ashwani Kumar son of Shri Madan Lal C/o Luxmi Electronics, Opposite P.S. City Sangrur , Tehsil Dhuri, District Sangrur.

2.             Tata Sky Ltd. through its Nodal Officer, E-45, Industrial Area, Mohali Byepass, Phase-8, Sector 71, Mohali.

3.             Tata Sky Ltd. through its Managing Director, 3^rd Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (Bombay Dyeing) Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :               In person.

For OP No.1             :               Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

For OP No.2             :               Shri G.P.Sharma, Adv.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Rajiv Singla, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs for the last seven eight years by obtaining a DTH connection (one main box with recording plus two additional boxes) under ID number 1099885038.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 27.5.2015, he paid an amount of Rs.11,400/- to OP number 1 for recharge of the connections for one year.  After a few days i.e. on 2.6.2015, the complainant received a text message from the OPs on his RMN 98157-08919 that the Tata sky account balance is….as such the complainant was surprised as he had got recharged the HD Mega Annual pack, as such he contacted OPs number 2 and 3, who told that the amount is being deducted on daily basis as the package was not locked.  Further case of the complainant is that on the asking of the Ops, he got deposited Rs.750/- on 2.6.2015, to avoid any further problem.  Further case of the complainant is that on 17.3.2016, the complainant shocked to receive a message from OP number 2 and that “Tata Sky ID 1099885038. Recharge of Rs.460/- is due on 20-3 for add on packs. Recharge now to continue viewing multi TV HD-Rs.230. Multi TV HD-Rs.230 for a month. Your base pack continues uninterrupted.” Though the complainant contacted OP number 2 and 3, but they told the complainant that the amount is being deducted on daily basis on add on packs and has been exhausted. Thus, the complainant has stated that the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice, as such has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and further Rs.50000/- for mental tension and agony etc.

 

3.             In reply filed by Op number 1, it has been admitted that the complainant got recharged his TATA connection plus two additional boxes on 27.5.2015 and paid Rs.11,400/- for the annual HD mega pack and after a few days the complainant came to the OP and showed a message in his mobile with regard to the balance amount in his TATA sky ID, as such the OP number 1 contacted OP number 2 who asked the reason of deduction of the amount on daily basis and further OP number 2 told that the recharge done by him was not locked and  as such, the amount is being deducted only on daily basis. Further it is admitted that on the asking of the OPs number 2 and 3, the OP number 1 told the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs.750/- which was deposited on 2.6.2015.  It is further averred that on 17.3.2016 the complainant again came to OP number 1 and as such recharge was done for Rs.460/- on 20.3.2016 and again the connection was recharged for Rs.460/- on 21.4.2016.  It is stated by OP number 1 that when contacted, the OP number 2 and 3 flatly refused to rectify their mistake and to accommodate the complainant. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

4.             In reply filed by OP number 2 and 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has no cause of action, that the complainant is not a consumer,  that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It is further stated that the complainant took the DTH connection from the OP vide subscription number 1099885038 on 31.1.2013 and under this ID there were three connections for Annual Mega HD pack, which expired on 15.5.2015. But the complainant failed to renew the annual mega HD pack and resultantly, the subscription amount of the complainant moved to daily debit basis from 16.5.2015 onwards and thereafter the complainant recharged the subscription account with Rs.500/- on 17.5.2015, Rs.100/- on 26.5.2015 and Rs.11,400/- on 27.5.2015 and Rs.750/- on 2.6.2015. It is further stated that since an amount of Rs.807.04 was debited from 16.5.2015 to 31.5.2015 as daily debit, but the connection got renewed his connection with annual mega HD pack on 1.6.2015. However, the multi TV subscription charges were increased to Rs.2530/- from the existing Rs.2200/- with effect from 1.6.2015. Since there was insufficient balance in the complainant’s subscription account to renew the multi TVs for annual pack  and resultantly, it continued on daily debit basis.  As such, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 and 3 has produced Ex.P2&3/1 affidavit along with Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs by obtaining the DTH connection (one main box with recording plus two additional boxes) bearing customer ID number 1099885038 and was charging the connection on annual package basis in advance. 

 

8.             The complainant has alleged that though he got charged the connection through OP number 1 on 27.5.2015 for Rs.11,400/- for one year under HD Mega Annual pack, but despite that the OP number 2 and 3 deducted the charges on daily basis as the package was not locked.  Further case of the complainant is that he again paid Rs.750/- on 2.6.2015 and further for Rs.460/- on 25.3.2016 and Rs.460/- on 21.4.2016, despite the fact that the complainant paid Rs.11400/- on 27.5.2015 for annual recharge mega HD pack (one plus Two), but the OPs number 2 and 3 started to charge on daily reduction basis.  The learned counsel for the complainant has thus contended vehemently that despite paying for full charges for one year, the OPs started to deduct the charges on daily basis, which is said to be a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  On the other hand, the OP number 1 has admitted having charges the DTH connection of the complainant by the amounts so mentioned in the complaint, whereas the learned counsel for OP number 2 has contended vehemently that the annual mega HD pack of the complainant expired on 15.5.2015, but the account of the complainant was debited for Rs.807.04 for the period from 16.5.2015 to 31.5.2015 as the complainant got recharged with Annual Mega HD Pack plan only on 1.6.2015, but by that time the Multi TV subscription charges were increased from Rs.2200/- to Rs.2530/-, as there was insufficient balance in the subscription account of the complainant, it continued on daily debit rests.  But, we are unable to go with such a contention of the learned counsel for the OPs as they have miserably failed to prove on record that if such charges were increased from Rs.2200/- to Rs.2530/-, then why the OPs recharged the DTH connection of the complainant on 1.6.2015 under the Annual Mega HD pack by charging Rs.11,400/- and why the complainant was not at that time apprised about the same and why they OPs did not charge the enhanced charges from the complainant.  Further there is nothing on record produced by the Ops that the charges were increased w.e.f. 1.6.2015 from Rs.2200/- to Rs.2530/- under the annual mega plan of the DTH.   As such, we find that it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs number 1 and 2.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops number 2 and 3 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and further OPs number 2 and 3 are directed to deposit an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur.

 

10.           This order of ours be complied with within a  period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                December 21, 2016.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

                                                  

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member

 

 

                                                (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                        Member