CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.269/2007
SH. RAM SWAROOP
S/O SH. KODI RAM
R/O F-3/451, SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110062
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
- CHAUHAN COMPLEX,
VEER BAZAR, BANDH ROAD,
SANGAM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI-110062
- DISH TV INDIA LIMITED,
FC-19, SECTOR-16 A,
FILM CITY, NOIDA-201301
………….. RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:11.02.2016
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Dish TV Box from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.3,500/- on 13.01.2007. OP-1 assured complainant that he can watch all the channels free of cost for an initial period of six months from the date of purchase and also assured that free to air channel may be viewed throughout without any recharge. The aforesaid dish TV worked for about a month but thereafter it stopped functioning. Complainant met OP-1 in this regard. OP-1 refused to entertain the complaint and misbehaved with complainant. Complainant also contacted OP-2, the service provider but he did not receive any satisfactory reply from OP-2. OP-2 asked complainant to contact OP-1. Complainant again contacted OP-1 but with no result. OP-1 has duped complainant. It is prayed that OP-1 be directed either to replace Dish TV box or return the amount and also direct OPs to jointly and severally to pay compensation of.10,000/- and Rs.5000/- for litigation expenses alongwith 18% interest.
OP-1 in its reply took the plea that he has never assured complainant that he is entitled to view all channels of dish TV free of cost for an initial period of six months from the date of purchasing. It is denied that OP-1 assured complainant that free to air channel may be viewed throughout without any recharging. It is denied that complainant approached OP-1 regarding non-functioning of dish TV. It is denied that OP-1 duped complainant. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
OP-2 in the reply took preliminary objection that present complaint is barred as there was agreement entered between the parties which provides that in case of any dispute the matter is to be referred to the sole arbitrator.
OP-2 also took the plea that no complaint has ever been made at the Customer Care Centre of OP-2. Thus it is proved that complainant was very much satisfied with the services of OP-2. It is denied that any assurance was given to complainant for providing free channels for six months. It is stated that complainant took a dish TV connection and is the subscriber of Dish TV and paid Rs.3,500/- for taking the connection i.e. Rs.3,200/- for the hardware and installation of the connection and Rs.300/- for the subscription of Maxi Package for one month, a subscriber was entitled to watch channels for one month of the Maxi Package. It is denied that complainant was given any assurance that on the payment of Rs.3500/- he would be provided channels for six months that is on the payment of subscription cost of one month. Complainant was informed at the very beginning that Dish TV is a pay DTH Platform and a subscriber will continue to receive the signals upon paying the subscription fee and that the free to air channels are the part of the DD Direct DTH platform. Moreover, complainant did not file even a single complaint with the Customer Care Centre of OP-2. Complainant has not furnished any material on record to substantiate his ground that he was being given any such assurance that he would be provided channels for a period of six months. Complainant took Dish TV connection under a scheme in which he was entitled to watch channels for a period of one month only and he was being provided channels for one month and thus there was no deficiency in service. It is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
We have heard complainant as well as OP-1 and carefully gone through the written submissions of the parties.
The fact of the matter is that complainant has taken a Dish TV connection and paid Rs.3,500/- out of which Rs.3,200/- was the price of set top box as well as of connection charges and Rs.300/- for monthly subscription.
Complainant has not placed any document on record to show that OP-1 has assured him that he can watch all the channels for six months without paying any amount. Whenever deficiency in service is claimed, the onus is on the party alleging deficiency in service to prove that a particular service was agreed to be provide and the same has not been provided. There is nothing on record to show that complainant was assured either by OP-1 or OP-2 that he can watch all the channels free of cost for a period of six months.
Complainant has paid subscription for a month and he definitely enjoyed the same for one month. Thereafter no payment was made and accordingly service was disconnected. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to show that any complaint was made at the Customer Care Centre of OP-2. Complainant though reported the matter to police regarding OP-1 but it is of no significance. There is nothing on the record to suggest that complainant was assured that he can watch all channels for six months without any payment. OP-1 has specifically denied that any such assurance was given to complainant. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
So far as contention of OP-2 regarding lack of jurisdiction of this Forum is concerned as there an arbitration clause in the agreement, suffice is to say that it is settled law that simply because there is an arbitration clause in the agreement that does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts.
For the reason stated above, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
