BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 18th of March 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.96/2010
(Admitted on 12.03.2010)
Mrs. Julia Goveas,
Wife of John Goveas,
Residing at Site No.9,
Jivith Nethravathi Layout,
Kankanady Post,
Mangalore 02. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Mrs. Suma R. Nayak)
VERSUS
1. Dish T.V. Customer Care Centre,
F.C. 19, Sector 16 A,
Film City, Noida 201301,
Represented by its
Customer Care Executive.
2. Balaji Digital Systems, Sri Malsa,
5-5-330/1, Vas Chambers,
Besant, Kankanady Road,
Kodialbail,
Represented by its Proprietor,
3. Raviraj Electronics,
Shop No.5-5-306/6,
Besant Commercial Complex,
B.G. School Road,
Mangalore – 03.
Represented by its
Authorised Signatory.
4. Pailands Electronics Services,
P M Rao Road,
Mangalore.
Represented by its Authorised
Signatory. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri. K.S. Nambiar)
Advocate for the Opposite Party No.3: Sri. Vivek Namenai)
Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4 are placed exparte)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is a subscriber of Dish T.V. bearing No.01504261090 (Dish T.V. Account No.2043523). The Opposite Party No.1 is a Customer Care Centre of Dish T.V. and Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized agent of Opposite Party No.1 at Mangalore. Opposite Party No.3 is the current agent of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.4 is the Business Concern from whom the complainant had purchased the Dish T.V. on 20.03.2007.
The grievances of the complainant is that, she has subscribed monthly package of Maxi Plus Scheme upto 23.08.2008. The last payment under this Scheme which she has paid was on 22.07.2008 for one month. According to the complainant till 23.08.2008, she had to get all the channels covered under the Maxi Plus Scheme but the Opposite Parties de-activated the Maxi Plus Scheme on 18.08.2008 i.e., prior to the expiry of the Scheme. It is stated that once again the complainant has renewed the package, there was an inordinate delay while activating the package. Due to the said act of the Opposite Parties, the complainant stopped subscribing to Dish T.V. for about one year and retained the instrument idle. It is further stated that, the complainant once again subscribed during 2008-09, she had subscribed Silver Package with Ala-carte pack by paying Rs.185/- per month. On 29.12.2009 the complainant upgraded her Silver Package by paying Rs.300/- and confirmed the validity upto 01.03.2010. But on 27.01.2010 all channels i.e., Silver Package Plus, Ala-carte were de-activated without communication and the amount paid displayed on the Dish T.V. Screen showed ‘zero’ balance. Thereafter, the complainant contacted Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3, on 28.01.2010 once again renewed Ala-carte Package by paying Rs.45/- for three months, the validity upto 26.03.2010. It is stated that, on the morning of 28.01.2010, the receipt of the amount was confirmed but the channel set on still 5.00 p.m., no activation took place. Thereafter, after much persuasion, on 30.01.2010, the Opposite Parties activated the channel and further stated that the picture and audio quality in the Dish T.V. instrument is poor and defective and the service rendered by the Opposite Parties deficient. Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction from this Forum to remove the deficiency of service by providing subscription to the Maxi Plus Scheme, Silver Package and Ala-carte 2616 for the next two years at free of subscription and also set right the defects in the Dish T.V. instruments supplied by the Opposite Parties. Further sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4 despite of serving version notice not appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 4. The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed separate version.
The Opposite Party No.1 denied the entire allegations alleged in the complaint and stated that this FORA has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Further it is stated that the complainant purchased the Dish T.V. Connection on 20.03.2007 and the same was installed at the residence of the complainant on 23.03.2007, after enjoying free viewing of six months, she has renewed her monthly package regularly on 14.09.2007 for Rs.300/-, again on 22.10.2007 for Rs.350/-, again on 20.11.2007 for Rs.350/-, again on 21.12.2007 for Rs.350/- and so on and always. It was the contention of the Opposite Party that, when the complainant was not getting services at all, why did she pay the renewal fees and that too not once but every time. It is stated that, the complainant has filed present complaint with the false allegations. The statement of accounts shows that, the connection of the complainant is valid till 28.06.2010. There has been no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The Opposite Party No.3, who is the authorized agent submitted that he has remitted the subscription amount collected from the complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 and there is no fault on the part of the Opposite Party No.3 and if at all there is any problems, the customer will have to contact the Opposite Party No.1 and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mrs. Julia Goveas has (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on her. Ex C1 to C14 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Raviraj Shetty (RW1), Opposite Party No.3 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii): The facts, which are not in dispute is that, the complainant is the subscriber of Dish T.V. bearing No.01504261090 (Dish T.V. Account No.2043523), the same has been purchased by the complainant on 20.03.2007 and installed at the residence of the complainant. It is also admitted that, the complainant had subscribed monthly package of Maxi Plus Scheme upto 28.03.2008 and the last payment under the above scheme, which she had paid for was on 22.07.2008. The above said Maxi Plus Scheme is valid till 23.08.2008. There is no dispute with regard to the validity of the above said package. It is further admitted that the above said Maxi Plus Scheme was deactivated by the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 on 18.08.2008. Further it is not disputed that, the complainant stopped subscribing Dish T.V. for about one year and kept the instrument idle. Thereafter, the complainant renewed the subscription during 2008-09 i.e., on 30.11.2009. The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3 introduced a new scheme zyada recharge and zyada return. The complainant subscribed silver package with Ala-carte package by paying Rs.185/- per month and on 29.12.2009 the complainant upgraded her silver package by paying Rs.300/-. The confirmed validity was upto 01.03.2010.
Now the grievances of the complainant is that, she had subscribed the Dish T.V. as stated supra, but the Opposite Parties deactivated the channel frequently, fed up by the service of the Opposite Parties, the complainant had stopped subscribing Dish T.V. for about one year. Thereafter, continuous persuasion by the Opposite Parties, she had once again renewed the subscription during 2008-09. Again she had faced the same problem i.e., the Opposite Parties without any communication deactivated the above package when Rs.150/- was balance at that time. Because of their attitude, the complainant has been harassed, she and her children could not view the last day of the Olympic Games and further alleged that the picture and audio quality is poor and the defects has not been rectified. Hence, came up with this complaint.
On the contrary, the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 3, who appeared through their counsel denied the deficiency.
The complainant in order to substantiate her case filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Exs.C1 to C14. Opposite Party No.3 filed oral evidence by way of affidavit but Opposite Party No.1 not filed any evidence.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record, we find that, the Opposite Party No.1, who is the Customer Care Centre of Dish T.V. and Opposite Party No.3, who is the current agent of the Opposite Party No.1 admitted that the complainant is the subscriber of Dish T.V. and also admitted that the above stated package was provided to the complainant by the Opposite Parties. The Ex.C1 i.e., the Tax Invoice cum Delivery Challan dtd.20.03.2007 reveals that the complainant purchased the above said Dish T.V. and the Ex.C2 is the Broacher issued by the Opposite Parties and Ex.C3 to Ex.C13 are the communications between the complainant and the Opposite Parties reveal that, the complainant has been harassed by the Opposite Parties for the deactivation of the channels provided by them. The Ex.C11 i.e., the Payment Confirmation Letter issued by the Opposite Parties shows that during the subsistence of the subscription of the channel were deactivated by the Opposite Parties. On 18.08.2008 the Maxi Plus Scheme was deactivated, which was actually valid upto 28.03.2008. The payment for the above scheme for one month was done on 22.07.2008 and the same has been again renewed to Dish Freedom Package on 03.11.2008. Further, It could be seen on record that, the payment was made as early as 31.10.2008. However, the complainant has sworn to the fact that because of the above attitude of the Opposite Parties, she had stopped subscribing Dish T.V. for a period of one year. The above fact was not denied by the Opposite Parties. So it is proved beyond doubt that, because of the deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant stopped subscribing the Dish T.V. for a year is believable and appears to be genuine.
Further, we have observed that, the complainant subscribed another Silver Package on 30.11.2009 and the same has been upgraded on 29.12.2009, which was valid upto 01.03.2010. The complainant has sworn to the fact that, on 27.01.2010 all the channels were deactivated and once again the complainant on 28.01.2010 renewed her subscription though it was valid upto 01.03.2010. The Opposite Party No.3 in their answer to the interrogatories No.6 stated that, ‘they have corresponded with the Opposite Party No.1 and the Opposite Party No.1 has not entertained the same’. The above reply of the Opposite Party No.3 throw light on the fact that the channel / package provided / issued by the Opposite Party No.1 was deactivated. Further we have observed that, the entire version as well as the affidavit of the Opposite Parties do not deny that, they have deactivated the channel / package on 27.01.2010 once again though the package was valid upto 01.03.2010. The only contention of the Opposite Parties i.e., Opposite Party No.1 is that, when the complainant was not getting services at all, why did she pay her renewal fees and that too not once but every time. We are very strange to note the above statement of the Opposite Party No.1. Just because the complainant renewed her subscription, it does not mean that, whatever done by the Opposite Parties are correct. The correspondences in volume produced by the complainant before this FORA supports her grievances that the Opposite Parties despite of validity of the package they have deactivated the package. It shows their deficiency while rendering the service to the customers herein the complainant. The customers are subscribing the channels to view the programmes, which is one of the entertainment in Society. The Opposite Parties being a service provider cannot deactivate the channels according to their whims and fancies though the package is valid upto a particular date or period. In case the customers opt for another package or the additional package when the first package was in existence, the Opposite Parties are not supposed to deactivate the existing package though it is valid upto a particular period. The Opposite Parties can deactivate the existing package after providing or activating the new package and confirming that all the existing packages could be viewed in new package. In the instant case, the Opposite Parties deactivated the channels before the validity period, which amounts to deficiency in service as stated supra.
Under that circumstances, we hold that, the Opposite Parties shall pay the reasonable compensation for the deficiency committed by them. No doubt, the complainant has not produced any material evidence in order to consider the compensation, but deprivation of viewing the channels especially where the children are staying with the family put to inconvenience. By considering the above aspect, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and also pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses along with that the Opposite Parties are directed to provide Maxi Plus Package free of cost to the complainant for three months. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
As far as Opposite Party No.2 is concerned, it is admitted by the parties that he was the authorized agent of Opposite Party No.1 but now the Opposite Party No.3 is the current agent of the Opposite Party No.1. Further Opposite Party No.4 is the business concern from whom the complainant had purchased the Dish T.V. on 20.03.2007. The complainant alleged that there was a defect in the Dish T.V. Instruments but the same has not been proved by producing expert evidence before this FOR A. Hence the complaint against Opposite Party No.4 as well as Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. 1st and 3rd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses along with that the said Opposite Parties are directed to provide Maxi Plus Package free of cost to the complainant for three months. Compliance / Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the 1st and 3rd Opposite Parties are hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of failure till the date of payment.
Complaint filed against the 2nd and 4th Opposite Parties is hereby dismissed.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 11 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mrs. Julia Goveas – Complainant
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 20-03-2007 – Invoice No.1168 – Tax Invoice cum Delivery
Challan.
Ex C2 – Broacher
Ex C3 – 14-10-2007 – Dish T.V. Complaint made to Customer Care.
Ex C4 – 22-10-2007 – Complaint made to Local Distributor.
Ex C5 – – Complaint to Customer Care Centre.
Ex C6 – 22-02-2008 – Complaint to Customer Care Centre.
Ex C7 – 20-08-2008 – Complaint made – illegal deactivation.
Ex C8 – 07-09-2008 – Reply sent by the Customer Care Centre.
Ex C9 - - Letter to Customer Care Centre.
Ex C10 - Receipt for recharge of Dish T.V. Account.
Ex C11 – 30-11-2009 – Payment confirmation Letter.
Ex C12 – 20-11-2008 – Legal notice
Ex C13 – 26-11-2008 – Reply by the 2nd Opposite Party.
Ex C14 - - Acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Raviraj Shetty – Opposite Party No.3
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
No documents have been produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties
Date: 18.03.2011 PRESIDENT
