THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR

Consumer Complaint No. 179 of 13

Date of Institution : 4.3.2013

Date of Decision : 14.07.2015

Sh. Sohan Lal Wahi son of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Wahi resident of 831/10, Opposite Gali Gossaian, Katra Bhai Sant Singh, Amritsar aged 60 years

...Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Bharati Tele Media Limited/Bharti Airtel Limited, having its registered office at Aravali Crescent, I, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, Phase-II, New Delhi 70 through its authorized personsofficer in charge

2. M/s. Bharti Tele Media Limited /M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Unitech World, Cyber Park, Tower B,8^th Floor, Sector 39, Gurgaon 122001

3. M/s. Bharti Tele Media Limited/M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited, Plot No. 21, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh

4. Airtel Digital TV Service Centre at Amritsar c/o M/s. Asha Enterprises, Near Wardrob, Madan Mohan Malviya Road, Amritsar

....Opp.parties

Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present : For the complainant : Sh. Pankaj Sharma,Advocate

For the opposite parties No.1 to 3 : Sh. Gautam Majithia,Advocate

For opposite party No.4 : Sh. Vicky Mehra,Advocate

-2-

Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member

Order dictated by :-

Bhupinder Singh, President

1 Present complaint has been filed by Sh. Sohan Lal Wahi under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he has purchased one dish connection/Airtel TV connection from the opposite parties with commercial ID No.3000966347. According to the complainant he has been making regular payment regarding user of the aforesaid connection since its installation. On 15.10.2012 due to heavy rain, dish Antenna received no signals and no channel is being running on television of complainant. The complainant lodged several complaints at call centre of the opposite party but to no avail as nobody from the opposite party turned up to give proper services to the complainant and to get the fault rectified. On 6.12.2012 one serviceman from the local office of opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but he too did not repair the connection on the ground that he did not bring requisite tools required for the repair and assured that he would return and rectify the error/fault. The complainant lodged several other complaints to the opposite party on 27.11.2012, 30.11.2012, 2.12.2012, 5.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 but the opposite party failed to rectify the complaints of

-3-

the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complaint of the complainant was not rectified by the opposite party due to reason that local office/service centre i.e. opposite party No.4 was claiming an amount of Rs. 100/- towards necessary charges. But on demand of receipt by the complainant, the officials of the opposite party No.4 flatly refused to issue any receipt because the complainant told them that he would challenge such illegal demands in the Consumer fora . Complainant has alleged that he has not been getting proper service from the opposite party since 15.10.2012 despite the fact that the complainant has since paid the entire amount pertaining to the aforesaid dish connection and its validity. The complainant also recharged his connection with an amount of Rs. 500/- in the last week of September 2012 or in the first week of October 2012 with its validity till last week of November 2012/first week of December 2012. Before expiry of said validity the complainant again recharged the connection with a further amount of Rs. 500/- having its validity till 14.2.2013. The complainant also issued notice to opposite party No.3 dated 28.12.2012 to the opposite party and the notice dated 12.2.2013 through registered post . But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 25000/- and to refund the amount lying to the credit of the complainant w.e.f 15.10.2012 till 14.2.2013 or to adjust

-4-

such amount in new pack and other charges. Litigation expenses Rs. 11000/- were also demanded by the complainant/

2. On notice opposite parties No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that from 27.11.2012 to 16.12.2012 there were complaints lodged by the complainant. Initially the complainant lodged loss of signal. On receipt of complaint, Engineer Mr. Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant and realigned the dish and the problem was resolved. On 30.11.2012 on complaint of the complainant , engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but there was no fault found in the dish and it was working properly. The complainant insisted the engineer to give him receipt for his visit to his premises. It was submitted that from 2.12.2012 to 16.12.2012 complainant had made false complaints. On 2.12.2012 an engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and the dish was realigned. The complainant was suggested relocation of dish as due to its location the signal was not properly being captured. The procedure for the same was also intimated to the complainant. Opposite parties alleged that on every visit of the engineer of the opposite parties, complainant misbehaved with them. The complainant was not ready to relocate the dish at his house but complained for loss of signal. The complainant was told that any signal reaching the dish would require minimum hinderance in front of it. It was also stated that dish and its allied equipments need to be kept at a particular

-5-

angle and its alignment is not to be disturbed and any change in alignment or hinderance in front of dish lead to disturbance of signal. The subscriber was told at the time of complaint of visiting charges of engineer . The warranty is provided against the equipment and not to the physical dimensions involved, such as alignment etc of dish. Opposite parties submitted that every complaint of the complainant was attended and the complainant every time misbehaved with the engineers and used foul language. After every visit and service the connection was found to be working. But complainant still made baseless complaints. The complainant was even provided option of relocation without charging anything as relocation involved extended cable and sometime involves making bores for screws etc. The complainant was called also and informed of solution to his problem by relocation, which the complainant flatly refused and stated that he did not want anyone to visit his house. It was submitted that despite providing resolution of his problems, the complainant filed the present complaint. It was further submitted that no recharge has been made by the customer after 2^nd December 2012. The connection had validity till 1^st February 2013 and due to failure of extension of validity by the complainant, the connection got suspended on 1^st February 2013. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3. Opposite party No.4 in its written version has denied that dish connection of

-6-

the complainant was not running since 15.10.2012 and no signals were received through such dish connection. It was submitted that from 27.11.2012 to 16.12.2012 there were complaints lodged by the complainant. Initially the complainant lodged loss of signal. On receipt of complaint, Engineer Mr. Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant and realigned the dish and the problem was resolved. On 30.11.2012 on complaint of the complainant , engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but there was no fault found in the dish and it was working properly. The complainant insisted the engineer to give him receipt for his visit to his premises. It was submitted that from 2.12.2012 to 16.12.2012 complainant had made false complaints. On 2.12.2012 an engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and the dish was realigned. The complainant refused to pay any amount of Rs. 100/- to the opposite party No.4 and misbehaved with the engineers . At the time of making the complaint, the complainant who was told about the charge of Rs. 100/- which is to be charged on the visit of the engineer, which is included in the terms and conditions entered in between the parties. The complainant was not ready to relocate the dish at his house. The complainant was told that any signal reaching the dish would require minimum hinderance in front of it. It was also stated that dish and its allied equipments need to be kept at a particular angle and its alignment is not to be disturbed and any change in alignment or hinderance in front of dish lead to

-7-

disturbance of signal. The subscriber was told the visiting charges at the time of complaint. The warranty is against the equipment provided and not to the physical dimensions involved such as alignment etc of dish. Opposite parties submitted that every complaint of the complainant was attended and the complainant every time misbehaved with the engineers and used foul language. After every visit and service the connection was found to be working. But complainant still made baseless complaints. The complainant was even provided option of relocation without charging anything as relocation involved extended cable and sometime involves making bores for screws etc. The complainant was called also and informed of solution to his problem by relocation, which the complainant flatly refused and stated that he did not want anyone to visit his house. It was submitted that despite providing resolution of his problems the complainant filed the present complaint. It was further submitted that no recharge has been made by the customer after 2^nd December 2012. The connection had validity till 1^st February 2013 and due to failure of extension of validity by the complainant, the connection got suspended on 1^st February 2013. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Sunil Kapoor Ex.C-2, affidavit of sh. Rakesh Kumar Ex.C-3, affidavit of Sh. Rishi Ex.C-4 legal notice Ex.C-5, original postal receipt dated 2.1.2013 Ex.C-6, legal

-8-

notice dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-7, original postal receipts dated 13.2.2013 Ex.C-8 to C11, telephone bills Ex.C-12, copy of electricity bill Ex.C-13, copy of Gas connection Ex.C-14, copy of small saving agency Ex.C-15, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-16, affidavit of Ajmer Singh Ex.C-17, affidavit of complainant Ex.C-18, receipt of Asha Enterprises Ex.C-19.

5. Opposite parties No.1 to 3 tendered affidavit of sh. Manu Sood,Asstt.Manager Ex.OP1/1, copy of recharge of customer detail Ex.OP1/2, copy of booklet of Airtel Digital Ex.OP1/3, Customer relationship form Ex.OP1/4, snapshot regarding service Ex.OP1/5.

6. Opposite party No.4 tendered affdavit of sh.Vijay Bhatia, Karta of Asha Enterprises Ex.OP4/1.

7. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.

8. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant obtained one dish connection/Airtel TV connection from the opposite party on 16.6.2009 with commercial ID No.3000966347. The complainant submitted that he has been making regular payment regarding user of the aforesaid connection since its installation. On

-9-

15.10.2012 the dish Antenna fitted at the residence of the complainant got some fault. Resultantly no signals were being received through the said dish connection. The complainant lodged complaint at call centre of the opposite party but no fruitful result came forward as nobody from the opposite party turned up to give proper services to the complainant and to get the fault rectified. On 6.12.2012 one serviceman from the local office of opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but he too did not repair the connection on the ground that he did not bring requisite tools required for the repair and assured that he would return and rectify the error/fault. The complainant lodged several other complaints to the opposite party on 27.11.2012, 30.11.2012, 2.12.2012, 5.12.2012 and 14.12.2012 but the opposite party failed to rectify the complaints of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complaint of the complainant was not rectified by the opposite party due to reason that local office/service centre i.e. opposite party No.4 was claiming an amount of Rs. 100/- towards necessary charges. But on demand of receipt by the complainant, the officials of the opposite party No.4 flatly refused to issue any receipt because the complainant told them that he would challenge such illegal demands in the Consumer fora . The complainant alleges that the complainant has not been getting proper service from the opposite party since 15.10.2012 despite the fact that the complainant has since paid the entire amount pertaining to the aforesaid dish connection and its validity. The

-10-

complainant also recharged his connection with an amount of Rs. 500/- in the last week of September 2012 or in the first week of October 2012 with its validity till last week of November 2012/first week of December 2012. Before expiry of said validity the complainant again recharged the connection with a further amount of Rs. 500/- having its validity till 14.2.2013. The complainant also issued notice to opposite party No.3 dated 28.12.2012 Ex.C-5 to the opposite party and the notice dated 12.2.2013 Ex.C-7 through registered post . But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

9. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that from 27.11.2012 to 16.12.2012 there were complaints lodged by the complainant. Initially the complainant lodged loss of signal. Engineer Mr. Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant and realigned the dish and the problem was resolved. On 30.11.2012 on complaint of the complainant , engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but there was no fault found in the dish and it was working properly. From 2.12.2012 to 16.12.2012 complainant had made false complaints. On 2.12.2012 an engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and the dish was realigned. The complainant was suggested relocation of dish as due to its location the signal was not properly being captured. The procedure for

-11-

the same was also intimated to the complainant. Opposite parties alleged that on every visit of the engineer of the opposite parties, complainant misbehaved with them. The complainant was not ready to relocate the dish at his house but complained for loss of signal. The complainant was told that any signal reaching the dish would require minimum hinderance in front of it. It was also stated that dish and its allied equipments need to be kept at a particular angle and its alignment is not to be disturbed and any change in alignment or hinderance in front of dish lead to disturbance of signal. The subscriber was told at the time of complaint about the charges of engineer visit. The warranty is against the equipment provided and not to the physical dimensions involved such as alignment etc of dish. Opposite parties submitted that every complaint of the complainant was attended and the complainant every time misbehaved with the engineers and used foul language. After every visit and service the connection was found to be working. But complainant still made baseless complaints. The complainant was even provided option of relocation without charging anything as relocation involved extended cable and sometime involves making bores for screws etc. The complainant was called also and informed of solution to his problem by relocation which the complainant flatly refused. Opposite parties filed details of recharge of the dish of the complainant Ex.OP1/2. No recharge has been made by the complainant after 2.12.2012. Opposite parties further submitted that connection

-12-

of the complainant was active but due to non co-operative behaviour of the complainant the said connection failed to receive signals of his subscriber channels. The connection had validity till 1.2.2013 and due to failure of extension of validity by the complainant the connection got suspended on 1.2.2013 as the complainant recharged his connection lastly on 2.12.2012 having validity upto 1.2.2013. Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that all the complaints made by the complainant regarding the dish connection were duly attended by the engineer of the opposite parties and were resolved as per list Ex.OP1/5 with suggestion to the complainant for relocation of the dish as the dish requires minimum hinderance in front of it. But the complainant refused to relocate the dish. As such the dish could not receive the signals properly. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant had taken one dish connection/Airtel digital TV connection of opposite parties which was established by the opposite parties at the premises of the complainant on 16.6.2009. Since then the said dish TV connection has been working properly i.e. for the last more than 3 years. The complainant alleges that on 15.10.2012 due to heavy rain the dish Antenna got some fault. Resultantly the dish connection was not receiving signals and no channel was being run on the TV

-13-

of the complainant. The complainant lodged various complaints through call centre on telephone. Opposite parties have admitted that complainant lodged complaints to the opposite parties within a period from 27^th November 2012 to 16.12.2012 regarding loss of signals which are mentioned in Ex.OP1/5 on 18.3.2014. Engineer Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant, realigned the dish and the problem was resolved. On 30^th November 2012, on complaint of the complainant ,Engineer Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant but he found no fault in the dish as it was working properly. On 2^nd December 2012 to 16^th December 2012, complainant lodged complaints with the opposite parties. Engineer of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant on 2^nd December 2012. the dish was realigned & the problem was resolved. Opposite parties suggested the complainant for relocation of dish as due to its location the signal was not properly being captured. The procedure for the same was also intimated to the complainant. Opposite parties have alleged that on every visit of the engineers the complainant misbehaved with the engineers of the opposite parties and was not ready to relocate the dish at his house. Opposite parties through affidavit of Manu Sood Asstt. Manager of the opposite parties Ex.OP1/1 has submitted that the dish of the complainant was not properly located and it required relocation as reported by the engineers of the opposite parties. The dish requires minimum hinderance in front of it . The dish and its allied equipments need to be kept at a particular angle and its

-14-

alignment is not to be disturbed. However with the change/development at the site or any hinderance appearing in front of the dish might have disturbed the signals and the signals do not reach the dish properly. Any change in alignment leads to disturbance of signals . Every time the engineers of the opposite parties used to tell the complainant that the dish required relocation. He was also intimated the procedure for the same. But the complainant was not ready to relocate the dish. So the signals are not being properly received by the dish and the channels are not properly appearing in TV of the complainant. Even the opposite parties have given offer to the complainant to relocate the dish Antenna at the expenses of the opposite parties, but the complainant was not ready for relocation of the dish Antenna.

11. As regards the allegation of the opposite party that every time i.e. at every visit of the engineer of the opposite party, complainant misbehaved with them, opposite parties could not produce any evidence in the form of affidavit of the engineers who visited the premises of the complainant for the repair of the dish connection of the complainant nor the opposite parties could produce any representation made by the said engineers to the higher authorities of opposite party No.2 or to the police to the effect that the complainant has misbehaved with the officials of opposite parties. The complainant has also placed on record affidavit of one Sunil Kapoor Ex.C-2, who is known/friend of the complainant, affidavit of one Rakesh kumar Ex.C-3 ,affidavit of one Rishi Ex.C-4 both neighbours of the complainant, affidavit

-15-

of Ajmer Chand Ex.C-17, who have deposed that the complainant is a gentle man and in their presence he never misbehaved/quarreled with any person of the opposite parties.

12 So far as the allegation of the opposite party regarding relocation of the dish of

the complainant, opposite party has produced on record affidavit of Manu Sood Asstt.Manager of the opposite parties Ex.OP1/1, service chart of the engineers of the opposite parties Ex.OP1/5 to prove that on 27.11.2012 Er. Sukhbir visited the premises of the complainant on the complaint lodged by the complainant, realigned the dish and resolved the problem. On 30.11.2012 and 2.12.2012 engineer of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant but found no defect in the dish. The customer/complainant was demanding the receipt of the visit charges which normally SSD don't give as there is no prescribed format of the company. Again on 4.12.2012 and 5.12.2012 Engineer Malkit of the opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant and found no problem in the dish. However, he again advised the complainant to get his dish relocated as the site of the dish was not proper that is why the signal was getting disturbed again and again and he again told to the complainant the charges of the same. On 14.12.2012 Er. Malkit advised the complainant to get his dish relocated, as the site of the dish was not proper, resultantly the signal was getting disturbed again and again. He also told to the complainant the charges of the same for which the customer

-16-

refused. On 16.12.2012 no Engineer went to the customer house on the ground that the customer was misbehaving. However on 19.12.2012 complainant Sohan Lal Wahi was called by the opposite parties through telephone No. 9646208004 and he was given offer that the complaint of the complainant would be resolved on FOC (free of cost) basis. But this offer was refused by the complainant as he told that he has filed the complaint and would like to see the opposite parties in the court. Further, the opposite parties have produced on record terms and conditions of the contract which are duly printed on the customer relationship form and as per clause 10, opposite parties reserve their right to charge as per rate card from the customer for rectifying any defect in the Airtel equipment and /or for any service call made by its engineer in respect of any fault/defect in the Airtel equipment. After the expiry of one year from the date of installation, Airtel company shall rectify any defect in the Airtel equipment at a charge payable by the customer. The dish Antenna/equipments were installed by the opposite parties at the premises of the complainant on 16.6.2009 and the defect developed in the said dish as per the complainant's version on 15.10.2012 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about 3 ½ years. So the opposite parties have right to charge for the rectification of any defect in the Airtel equipment.

13 The allegation of the complainant is that the engineers or mechanics of the opposite parties used to demand Rs. 100/- for their visit for rectification of any
-17-

defect in the Airtel equipment/dish and the said engineers/mechanics of the opposite parties did not issue receipt. The complainant has nowhere in his pleadings i.e. complaint or in his affidavit Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-18 has stated that he paid any amount to the engineers/mechanics of the opposite parties nor he mentioned any date , month or year when he paid any amount to the engineers/mechanics , who visited the premises of the complainant for the rectification of any defect in the Airtel equipment. So the allegation levelled by the complainant that the engineers/ mechanics of the opposite parties used to demand Rs. 100/- for each visit to the premises of the complainant for the rectification of any defect in the Airtel equipment of the complainant and on the refusal to pay the same by the complainant without receipt the said engineers or mechanics misbehaved with the complainant, is not genuine nor the complainant could prove these facts on record nor the complainant has lodged any such complaint with the higher authorities of the opposite party or with the police in this regard that the engineers of the opposite parties misbehaved with the complainant. So these allegations are baseless. Moreover, both the parties i.e. opposite parties and the complainant are levelling allegations of misbehaviour against each other but both of them have failed to prove these allegations , on record.

14. As regards receipt Ex.C-19 dated 8.8.2012 this receipt has been issued by the opposite parties, of Rs. 150/- for visit charges as well as A/Y cable which was

-18-

replaced by the opposite parties , the opposite parties were justified in charging this amount as per clause 10 of the Customer Relationship Form because more than one year has elapsed after the installation of the Airtel equipment at the premises of the complainant which was installed on 16.6.2009.

15. So from the entire above discussion, it is clear that whenever any complaint was received by the opposite parties from the complainant, they sent their engineer and resolved the problem. The engineering staff of the opposite parties concluded that the dish Antenna of the complainant requires relocation and they suggested the complainant so many times for relocation of the dish Antenna as due to its location the signal was not properly being captured. The procedure for the same was also intimated to the complainant. Even the opposite parties have given offer to the complainant that they are ready to relocate the dish Antenna of the complainant free of cost basis. But even then the complainant was not ready for relocation of the dish Antenna as a result of which the dish Antenna of the complainant could not properly receive the signals/channels and every time the engineers of the opposite parties had to make some adjustments in the dish Antenna to make it functional.

16. The complainant has failed to prove on record any misbehaviour meted out by the engineers of the opposite parties, to the complainant.

17. Consequently we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant. As

-19-

such we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

18. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

14.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)

/R/ Member Member