Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainants filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking refund of Rs.4300/- being the value of dish connection; Rs.1,032/- being the interest @24% p.a., from               01-03-11 to 01-03-12; Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The 2^nd opposite party is manufacturer and service provider of Airtel dish.  The 1^st opposite party is the authorized dealer of the 2^nd opposite party for Airtel dish connection.   The complainant on                01-03-11 purchased a package for Rs.4300/- from the 1^st opposite party for an year.   The said package included sports channel.  Technician of the opposite parties installed dish antenna on neighbor’s wall and fixed the set box inside the house of the complainant connecting cable to it.   The said technician advised the complainant that the dish antenna would start functioning within 48 hours from the date of installation.  Even after lapse of one week no programmes were broadcasted in the TV set of the complainant through dish antenna.  While things stood thus neighbors of the complainant raised an objection for fixing dish antenna on their wall.   The complainant informed the same to the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party failed to entrust the job work of shifting dish and activation of channels. The complainant also informed the same to the 2^nd opposite party through toll free number as the 1^st opposite party failed to rectify the defect in spite of telephone calls and E-mails.   The complaint also got issued notice to the opposite parties on 26-07-11.    Both parties kept quite without giving any reply.   The complainant is actively involved in District Veteran Cricket Association and served as Sports Media contributor in Guntur. The complainant lost his entertainment as the opposite parties failed to provide telecast of sports channels and as such is entitled to claim damages.   The complaint therefore be allowed.       

3.    The 1^st opposite party remained exparte.

4.    The contention of the 2^nd opposite party in brief is thus:

        The 2^nd opposite party is engaged in the business of providing DTH services to its subscribers across India including Andhra Pradesh.    The customers of the opposite party avail DTH services on subscription basis.  The 2^nd opposite party lays down its network equipment at customer’s premises consisting of dish antenna, set top box, cable connectors, LNBF, viewing card and remote to enable the customer to avail the services.   The aforesaid network equipment always remained the property of the opposite party.   Initially any customer will be charged activation charges.    The 1^st opposite party is an authorized Airtel relationship centre on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party.   The  2^nd opposite party is not a manufacturer of dish but provides DTH services across Andhra Pradesh.   The 2^nd opposite party distributes multi channel TV programmes by using a satellite system directly to subscriber’s premises without passing through intermediary such as cable operator.   Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party visited the complainant’s premises and informed him that there was no clear line of sight (LOS) in his premises and needed a platform of a prescribed height to install dish antenna.     Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party advised the complainant to obtain neighbors permission for installation of dish antenna on compound wall.   The complainant informed the engineer of the 2^nd opposite party that permission of neighbor is not required to install dish antenna.   As the LOS was available on the compound wall of complainant’s premises, engineer of the 2^nd opposite party installed dish in the compound wall.    After completion of installation the services were activated.   The 2^nd opposite party was not aware of the objections raised by complainant’s neighbors for fixation of dish TV.   The complainant requested the opposite party to shift the dish antenna from the compound wall to some other place in complainant’s premises.   Engineer of the opposite party informed the complainant that laying of platform to a prescribed height was necessary as there was no clear line of sight.  The complainant for the reasons best known to him did not lay platform.  Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party visited complainant’s premises on several occasions.   The 2^nd opposite party receives various notices day in and day out. Unless it was addressed to the concerned department it may be difficult to reply for the same.  The 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be dismissed with exemplary costs.   

5.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of complainant. No documents were marked on behalf of 2^nd opposite party.

6.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount?
3. To what relief?

7.  Admitted facts in this case are these:

1. The 2^nd opposite party used to provide DTH services on                subscription to  customers across Andhra Pradesh.
2. The 1^st opposite party is the authorized Airtel relationship centre of the 2^nd opposite party.
3. The complainant on 01-03-11 purchased DTH connection from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.4300/- (Ex.A-1 and A-2).
4. Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party installed dish antenna on the compound wall of complainant’s premises at his request.
5. The complainant requested the 2^nd opposite party to shift dish antenna from the compound wall to some other place in his premises.
6. The opposite parties received notice of the complainant        (Ex.A-5 and A-6).

8.  POINT No.1:-   The complainant in his complaint and affidavit mentioned “The technician advised me the dish antenna works within 48 hours from the date of installation.  Activation of dish TV required 48 hours for broadcasting the channels.  I believed the instructions given by the technician.  Even after lapse of one week time this dish TV not at all activated and no programs were broadcasted in the TV”.   The complainant in later part of his complaint mentioned “Due to failure of providing sports channels that the complainant lost his entertainment.   It is the gross negligence of the opposite parties.”   But the same did not find place in his affidavit filed on 17-07-12.

9.     The complainant in Ex.A-5 notice dated 25-07-11 mentioned the following:

                “Soon after the date of the purchase, the company worker (Technician) visited our client’s premises and install the DISH antina on the neighbours wall and set-box also installed inside the house of our client and cable also connected between the sub-box and dish.   The technician represented that the channels will commence within one day or two days, from the date of installation.   Even after, one week, the dish was not functioning.   In the meanwhile, the neighbours also objected for fixation of dish on their wall.  That our client informed the same to the No.1 of you.   After receiving the information that No.1 of you failed to entrust the work to your technician and failed to rectify the activation of the dish.  That our client exhaustively made several representations to No.1 of you, by way of telephone and E-mail continuously.   There is no response eight from both of you.  That our client secured several phone numbers of officials, relating to your company, by contacting through Toll-free numbers.  That our client made several representations, orally and request your officials to rectify the activation of the dish and set-right the dish that our client made E-mail complaints on 30^th March, 25^th March, 23^rd March and 21^st March of 2011.  But, there is no response from your end.   Our client’s DTH ID.No.3302103999294156.   Our client is a Secretary of Guntur District Veteran Cricket Association and active in sports media contributor.

        You are both of you hereby called upon you to pay the paid amount of Rs.4,300/- with interest @24% pa., from the date of purchase and our client also demand to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and inconvenience, caused by your dealer and technicians and you are the person who jointly liable with the inaction of the dealer, within 10 days, after receipt of this legal notice, otherwise, our client will take necessary legal action against both of you, before the District Consumer Forum for deficiency of your service and you are also liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this legal notice”.   

  The said notice was silent regarding telecast of sports channel though mentioned in the complaint. 

10.    The 2^nd opposite party in its version and affidavit categorically mentioned that the services were activated after completion of installation.   The above averments of the complaint as detailed supra are ambiguous in our considered view and supported the contention of the opposite parties that services were activated.  

11.  The 2^nd opposite party in its version specifically mentioned the following:

  “It is denied that the complainant purchased dish Airtel connection from 1^st opposite party on 01-03-11 for Rs.4300/- which provides all channel including sports channel for one year from the date of purchase”. 

12.   In view of the above contention of the 2^nd opposite party the burden is on the complainant to prove the details of package purchased under Ex.A-1.  Ex.A-1 bill did not contain the details of package.  Except Ex.A-1 the complainant did not file any other material to show the details of package.   Under those circumstances the contention of the 2^nd opposite party regarding the details of package is having considerable force and we hold that the 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.

13.   Absence of details of package in Ex.A-1 bill issued by 1^st opposite party amounted to unfair trade practice which falls under deficiency of service in our considered opinion.   The complainant should have insisted for mentioning the details of package under  Ex.A-1 while taking connection.   For the discussion made supra we hold that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service i.e., in not mentioning the details of package and answer this point accordingly.    Under those circumstances directing the 1^st opposite party to refund Rs.4300/- to the complainant will meet ends of justice.

14.  POINT No.2:-    In view of above findings, awarding Rs.2000/- as damages to the complainant from the 1^st opposite party will meet ends of justice.    We therefore answer this point accordingly.

15.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

        1.   The complainant is directed to handover dish antenna,                       set-box to the 1^st opposite party within two weeks under     acknowledgement from the date of this order.

        2.  The 1^st opposite party on receipt of the same is directed to return Rs.4300/- to the complainant immediately.

3.  The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as         damages and Rs.1,000/- towards costs to the complainant   within six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

4.  The claim against 2^nd opposite party is dismissed without    costs.

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21^st day of September, 2012.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 2^nd opposite party:   NIL

        PRESIDENT