Haryana

Panchkula

48/2015

SUKHBIR SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DIGITAL CABLE SERVICE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

01 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PANCHKULA.                                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	48 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	12.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	01.07.2015

                                                                                          

Sukhbir Singh son of Late Sh. Darshan Singh, resident of House No. C-19, Hafed Residential Complex, Sector-14, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1. Digital Cable Service, Shop No. 7 above Wine Shop, Haripur, Sector-4, Panchkula, through its Proprietor/Incharge.
2. Fastway Transmission Private Limited, Lajjya Tower, Near EPF Building, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana through its MD/Proprietor.

 

                                                                         ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person.

Mr. Jitender Malik, Advocate for OP no. 1.

OP no. 2 is already ex-parte.

 

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

 

1. The complaint has been filed by the complainant Sukhbir Singh against the OPs with the averments that complainant had been using TV cable connection at his residence since 2012-13 which was running smoothly.  But in the first week of April 2014, the cable connection was disconnected by OP No.1 and advised to install set top box to avail the cable facilities as it had become mandatory. As per advice of the Op No.1, the complainant requested the OP no. 1 to install set top box at his residence to get the TV cable facility to continue without any problem and the OP no. 1 installed the TV Set Top Box of Fastway Company/OP no. 2 and charged Rs. 1000/- as security and Rs. 250/- as monthly charges vide cash receipt no. 9704 dated 15.04.2014 (Annexure C-1).  There was no problem in the set top box upto 25^th of January, 2015, but on 26.01.2015, when the complainant switch on the TV to view the National programme on account of Republic Day, the set top box did not respond due to some defect arisen therein. The complainant immediately contacted OP No.1 telephonically and requested him to get the set top box repaired immediately who assured that their Mechanic would come at the complainant’s residence very shortly and rectify the set top box but none came to attend the complaint of the complainant for at least 8-10 days inspite of making requests telephonically day to day & time and again. Then at last complainant contacted the OP no. 2/Fastway Company on their customer care phone No. 92170-92170 on 03.02.2015 and registered the complaint vide complaint No. 1213021 who assured verbally to the complainant that the Mechanic would reach him for rectification of the problem in the set top box within 8 working hours and OP no. 2 had also sent the SMS on his mobile no. 98720-78844 stating that “your complaint has been logged.  Same will be resolved in 8 working hours.  Sorry for inconvenience” (Annexure C-2).  After that when no one reached at the residence of the complainant then he again, on 04.02.2015 contacted the customer care on the same number and the same assurance was given to him (Annexure C-3). The complainant again on 6.2.2015 contacted the customer care but in vain.  At last, complainant requested the OP no. 2 to rectify the defect immediately otherwise he would file a complaint before the Ld. Consumer Court.  Thereafter, the OP no. 2 stopped sending SMS or giving any response to the calls of the complainant which act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. The OP no. 1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that complainant has stopped making payment to his connection since, November 2014.  It is submitted that the OP No.1 requested the complainant through its Collection Representative Sh. Avtar but the complainant did not clear his dues. It is submitted that due to non-clearance of dues by the complainant, a public notice was issued in the local newspaper for disconnection of the service of the complainant and the OP No. 2 disconnected the services of the complainant.  It is further submitted that complainant himself has averred that he has allegedly contacted OP No. 2 at its customer care no. 92170-92170 and he was assured that his complaint has been lodged & it would be resolved within 8 working hours, therefore, OP No. 1 was not at fault.  It is submitted that the Op No.2 would have been recommended the complainant to contact the OP No.1 for redressal of his grievances but neither the complainant nor OP No.2 has ever informed the OP No.1 regarding non-responding of set top box of the complainant either orally or in written. It is further submitted that Ordinance was passed by the Cabinet that all cable TV households in metros would have to be digitalized by March, 2012 & in rest of the country by December, 2014 and it will necessitate conversion of analogue systems into digital systems; consumers will have to install a set top box. It is submitted that message was being broadcasted on each and every local channel to all the subscribers and that period was extended further uptill 1.4.2014, therefore, all the subscribers were requested to get the set top box installed on payment of security amount of Rs.1000/- and the digital supply would be continued on payment of monthly subscription. It is submitted that after depositing the prescribed security amount and payment of monthly subscription, the connection was restored to the complainant. But after November, 2014, the complainant was in the arrears of his subscription dues, due to which public notice was issued and latter on services were disconnected by OP no. 2. It is submitted that the Op No.1is one of the renowned, innovative and leading cable operator across the local area in Panchkula and is a best service provider of IP services for cable segment customers.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Op No.1. 
3. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post but none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2. It is deemed to be served and the Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21.04.2015.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, counsel for the OP no. 1 has tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R1/A & Annexure R1/B  and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the Op No.1 and have perused the record alongwith the written arguments filed by the complainant.
6. The case of the complainant is that in the first week of April, 2014, the cable connection installed at his residence and was advised to get the set top box installed to avail the facility as it was mandatory. On the advice of the OP No.1, the complainant got installed the TV set top box of Fastway Company (OP No.2). The Op No.1 charged Rs.1,000/- as security and Rs.250/- as monthly charges vide receipt No.9704 dated 15.04.2014 (Annexure C-1). There was no problem in the set top box upto 25.01.2015. However, on 26.01.2015 when the complainant switched on the TV, the set top box did not respond. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 on phone and requested to get the set top box repaired but nobody came to attend. After waiting for 8-10 days, the complainant contacted the Op No.2 on their phone No.92170 92170 on 03.02.2015. The complaint of the complainant was registered vide No.1213021 and also sent the SMS on his mobile phone No.98720-78844 stating that “your complaint has been logged. Same will be resolved in 8 working hours. Sorry for inconvenience” (Annexure C-2). The complainant again contacted the Op No.2 on 04.02.2015 and again received the same SMS (Annexure C-3). The complainant again contacted the Op No.3 on 06.02.2015 but nobody came to rectify the defect. The complainant had to get installed Airtel Disc. During the arguments, the complainant has also placed on record the call detail Mark ‘X’ in support of his contention that he contacted the Op No.1 on phone and requested to rectify the defect.
7. The stand taken by the Op No.1 is that the complainant has stopped making payment since November, 2014. The collection representative-Avtar has also requested the complainant to clear the dues. Due to non-clearance of dues a public notice was issued in the local newspaper for dis-connection of service. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 has submitted that neither the Op No.2 nor the complainant has ever informed the OP No.1 regarding non-responding of set top box. Hence, the Op No.1 is not at fault. However, during the arguments, learned counsel for the Op No.1 has submitted that Op No.1 is ready to provide the service to the complainant free of charges for one year.
8. Careful perusal of the file reveals that Annexure C-1 is receipt for the payment of Rs.1,000/- as security and Rs.250/- as monthly charges paid to the O No.1 by the complainant. The OP No.1 has failed to place on record any document to prove that the complainant has not clear the dues. They have also failed to explain for which month(s) the dues were outstanding against the complainant and how much amount. They have also not produced the affidavit of Avtar-collection representative and public notice issued by the Op No.1 in support of their contention that the dues were outstanding against the complainant. It is important to note that Op No.1 has agreed to provide the service for one year free. The offer given by the Op No.1 for providing the service for one year free to the complainant also proves deficiency in service on its part. We feel that the act of the Ops not to entertain the requests of the complainant proves deficiency in service on their part, which certainly caused immense mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.
9. In the light of the above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Ops are deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant deserves to succeed and the same is allowed. The Ops are directed as under:-

1. To refund the security amount of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant and to take back the set top box.
2. To pay a composite amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

 

This order be complied with within a period of 30 days of its receipt by the Ops thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @ 12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub para (i) and (ii) above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced                     (Anita Kapoor)                       (Dharam Pal)

01.07.2015                     Member                                  President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                            

                                                          Dharam Pal                                                                                                President