THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C. 547/2012
Dated this the 14th day of June 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:
This petition is filed under section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986.
The 1st Opposite party is the service provider of Asianet Cable TV and the 2nd Opposite party is their branch office at Kozhikode. Petitioners case is that believing the offer made by the 2nd Opposite party that they will provide Digital service and 90 channels for payment of Rs.2025/- for a period of 1 year, he availed their service by paying the said amount on 09.07.2012. But the opposite parties failed to provide the digital service and 90 channels as offered. He was getting only the ordinary T.V. Programmes and 50 channels. When complained, the 2nd Opposite party informed him that if he want digital service and 90 channels he has to pay an additional amount of Rs.950/-. There upon he demanded reimbursement of the paid amount but it was informed that they will not reimburse the amount.
As the 2nd Opposite party hesitate to reimburse the amount even after several requests, he issued a lawyer’s notice to the 1st Opposite party on 14.08.2012 demanding reimbursement of the paid amount along with compensation to the tune of Rs.25000/- for the mental agony and other difficulties suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on their side. Though the 1st Opposite party received the letter on 16.08.2012, they did not return the amount or replied to that notice. According to the petitioner the said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their side. Hence this petition is filed to direct the opposite parties to refund the collected amount of Rs.2025/- along with Rs.25000/- as compensation for his mental agony and other difficulties suffered and also cost of the proceedings.
The 2nd Opposite party filed version for themselves and for and on behalf of the 1st Opposite party also. It is admitted that the petitioner is their subscriber and had paid Rs.2025/- for availing their digital service. It is submitted that the digital service can be provided only through Set Top Box and it was provided to the petitioner in June 2011. As per their terms and conditions, the Set Top Box has only 1 year warranty. During this period if any complaint what so ever occurred, they will clear it free of cost. They had an Annual Maintenance Package by which if the customers pays an amount of Rs.250/- plus tax they will get all services including replacement of the Set Top Box for another 1 year. If the Annual Maintenance charge is not paid the customer will have to bear the expenses. The petitioner refused to pay Rs.250/- towards Annual Maintenance Charge.
It is further stated that on receipt of the complaint, their technical team inspected his connection and found that there was some defects in the Set Top Box and so informed the petitioner that, for rectification he has to pay the charges which would come to Rs.990/-. But he was not willing to pay the amount and hence they could not do anything. Thereafter the petitioner switched on to Analogue Mode, and there he can view 50 channels. Even now he is enjoying Asianet Cable Connection and an amount of Rs.225/- is due to them. The warranty period of the Set Top Box is expired and this complaint is filed after the expiry of the warranty period. There is no deficiency of service on their side as alleged. All other allegations are denied by the opposite parties and prayed to dismiss the petition with cost.
Both the parties filed affidavits. Petitioner produced documents 4 in numbers and those were marked as Ext.A1 to A4 on his side. Evidence also consists of the depositions of PW1 and RW1.
It is admitted by the opposite parties that the petitioner was their subscriber and they have collected Rs.2025/- for providing digital service with 90 channels for 1 year. The petitioners complaint is that after collecting Rs.2025/- as installation and other charges for 1 year the opposite parties have not provide the digital facility or 90 channels as offered. According to the opposite parties on inspection of the Set Top Box by their technical team it was found defective and as the warranty period was expired and the petitioner was not paid towards Annual Maintenance Charge, they demanded Rs.990/- for rectifying the defects and as the petitioner was not willing to pay the amount they could not rectify the defects.
In their version and affidavit the opposite parties have stated that “As per the terms and conditions, the Set Top Box has 1 year warranty from the date of installation. During the period of 1 year, if any complaint whatsoever occurred, Asianet will attend the complaint free of cost”. So as per their promise they are bound to rectify any defects with the Set Top Box free of cost within the warranty period ie. within 1 year. Ext.A1 shows that the Cable connection was installed during the month of June 2012. Ext.A2 is the copy of Lawyers notice issued by the petitioner to the 1st Opposite party dtd.14.08.2012 stating that he is not getting digital service and 90 channels as offered by the 2nd Opposite party, their branch office and even after repeated requests the 2nd Opposite party is not cared to rectify the complaint with the Set Top Box free of cost and they are demanding Rs.950/- as additional charge for rectifying the same and this demand is against their offer and so he demands refund of the paid amount of Rs.2025/- within 15 days.
Thus Ext.A2 proves that the defect with the Set Top Box occurred within the warranty period and the petitioner had reported the same to the 2nd Opposite party and they are not rectified the defect free of cost even the defect occurred within the warranty period and against their offer, they had demanded additional amount for rectifying the defects, though they are bound to do it free of cost.
More over no reply was sent by the 1st Opposite party to Ext.A2 letter denying the allegations therein. Thus Ext.A2 letter disproved all the contentions of the opposite parties and proved the case of the petitioner.
In their version and affidavit the opposite parties stated that the connection was installed during the month of June 2011. Even after receiving Ext.A2 letter they have not changed their stand. But no evidence was adduced to prove this. But Ext.A1 proves that the connection was given in June 2012 and the defect with the Set Top Box occurred within the warranty period.
Considering the facts stated and perusal of documents on record we are of the opinion that the non-rectification of the defects with the Set Top Box free of cost within the warranty period and not providing the digital facilities with 90 channels as agreed and the demand for extra amount for rectifying the Set Top Box amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the said finding, this petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to get reasonable reliefs. No doubt the non-availability of the T.V.Channels will cause inconvenience and mental pain, but the petitioner has not produced evidence to show that he had sustained any loss due to that, for getting Rs.25000/- as compensation.
In the result the following order is passed:-
The opposite parties are ordered to refund the collected amount of Rs.2025/-(Rupees Two thousand and twenty five only) along with Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for the petitioners difficulties and also Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dated this the 14th day of June 2016.
Date of filing: 06.12.2012.
SD/-MEMBER SD/- PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Provisional receipt issued by the opposite party
A2. Copy of lawyer notice sent to the opposite party
A3. Postal receipt
A4. Acknowledgement card
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1. Murali, 1977, B, 6/1664, ‘Sree”, Edakkad P.O., Kunduparamba, Kozhikode 673 005.
Witness examined for the opposite party:
RW1. Ganesh, Balagopal Sadan, V.K.K. Menon Road, Kallai P.O., Calicut – 3
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
