Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/14/2014

SUN DIRECT TV PRIVATE LTD., - Complainant(s)

Versus

B. JAYACHANDRAN - Opp.Party(s)

B.K. GIRISH NEELAKANDAN

08 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                        PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                             MEMBER                                                                                 

F.A.NO.14/2014

(Against the order in CC.No.200/2011, dated 13.12.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 8^th DAY OF JUNE 2015

M/s. Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd,

By Managing Director,

4/1017, 3^rd Cross Street,                                    M/s.B.K.Girish Neelakandan

9^th Link, Nehru Nagar,                                    Counsel for Appellant /1^st Opp.party

Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 041.

-vs-

1. Mr.B.Jayachandran

    S/o.Bangaru,

    No.232, VGP Nagar,                                   1^st Respondent/ Complainant

    Mugappair, Chennai – 37.                              Served called absent

2. M/s.MST Enterprises,

    By Manager,

    No.52, Venkateswara Colony,                     2^nd Respondent / 2^nd opposite party

    11^th Cross Street, Nehru Nagar,                     Called absent

    Kottivakkam, Chennai-41.

          The 1^st Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / 1^st opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.200/2011, dated 13.12.2012.    

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 01.06.2015, upon hearing the arguments on the side of the appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The 1^st opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainant availed the direct DTH service from the opposite parties on 4.1.2010 by purchasing connection at Ramkumar Tele point at Mogappar, Chennai and received the necessary materials for the same along with smart card bearing No.41279958510 and subscription pouch and it was installed and since there was a free offer for 4 months without recharge, the complainant had viewed the same. After expiry of 4 months he recharged the smart card bearing Sl.No.41279958510 for continuation. Inspite of it, signal did not receive and after seeking help line for technical assistance and as per their advice once again recharged.  But the set top box did not receive the signal and again and again recharged the smart card for various denomination and various amount to the extent of Rs.3,634/-.  But only after 8 months the complainant was informed that the 2^nd opposite party wrongly delivered the smart card bearing No.41279959187 which was not purchased by the complainant and thereon after issuing legal notice consumer complaint came to be filed praying reliefs before the District Forum.

3.       The opposite parties remained absent before the District Forum even after the receipt of the notices and thereby they were set exparte and the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2000/- as costs.

4.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the 1^st opposite party filed the appeal contending that the complainant having availed the service for their smart card No.41279958510 and successfully toping up upto September 2010 enjoying the signals which was deactivated on 14.10.2011 only for failure to top of the same and there is no change of address intimated by the complainant which is essential for subscription agreement and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

5.       The appellant relied upon under Ex.B1 and B2 filed before this Commission by way of additional documents.  When the appeal is taken up before this commission the 1^st Respondent / complainant and 2^nd Respondent / 2^nd opposite party remained absent before this commission and on hearing the arguments of the appellant and upon perusing the material records order being passed on merits.

6.       It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant has purchased DTH service with smart card No.41279958510 and after enjoying 4 months free viewing channels as an offer after that inspite of payment by way of top ups for several times he could not view channels and only after 8 months he came to know through the technical persons that he was delivered with wrong smart card having No.41279959187 instead of 41279958510 and thereby alleging deficiency in service.  The opposite parties including the appellant failed to appear before the District Forum and now relied upon under Ex.B1 and B2 which are details of relating to two smart cards and Ex.B1 relates to the complainant’s actual intended card No.41279958510 activated from 4.1.2010 and as per the details upto 14.9.2011 top ups were made for the same and under Ex.B2 for the smart card No.41279959187 also activated from 4.1.2010 and also top up on 23.1.2010 and subsequently no continuation which was admitted as de-activated.  But there is no  materials to show that  the complainant  actually  viewed the channels for the smart card mentioned in No.41279958510 and no records were produced for the same.  But the complainant alleged in his complaint that all his recharges were enjoyed by a subscriber (unnamed residing at No.5/103, Viliputher via, Kandipudher, Vellore-632 106.  The Smart Card bearing No.41279958510, which was purchased by the complainant was wrongly inserted in a Set Top Box of the said subscriber by the 2^nd opposite party.  The Smart Card bearing No.41279959187, which was not purchased by the complainant was wrongly inserted in a Set Top Box of the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.  This is not disputed or denied by the appellant.   It is not in dispute that the complainant had subscribed payments by way of top up upto September 2011 for the same No.41279958510 and the allegations that he could not view the channels after free offer for 4 months till filing the complaint was not denied that he was supplied with wrong smart card which was inserted with the set up box having smart card No.41279959187 and thereby it is clear that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in providing the DTH service and even though the complainant claimed for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as per the complaint as well as the legal notice under Ex.A3 and the District Forum awarded only a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation without direction for refund of the money or for restoration of Smart Card No.41279958510 as prayed for which cannot be considered as abnormal or in excess and also a sum of Rs.2000/- only was awarded as costs which are also justifiable and thereby we are of the view that there is no need for any interference with the order of the District Forum and the appeal deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.200/2011, dated 13.12.2012.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

          The directions shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                   A.K.ANNAMALAI

    MEMBER                                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

LIST OF ADDL.DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT:

Sl.No.	Date	Descriptions
Ex.B1		Copy of Details of the Smart Card No.41279958510
Ex.B2		Copy of Details of the Smart Card No.41279959187

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                   A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

INDEX; YES/NO

VL/PJM/D/CONSUMER