Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/49/2021

Pabitra Kumar Tripathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dish TV India Ltd. F.C - Opp.Party(s)

Pabitra Kumar Tripathy

10 Jan 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 49/2021

 

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Pabitra Kumar Tripathy(Advocate),

R/o- Govindtola, Dist-Sambalpur-768005

Adhaar No.926121688845

Mobile No. 9438650447                                                ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

Dish TV India Ltd. F.C

19-Sector, 16-A, Film City, Noida(Uttarpradesh)

India, PIN-201301,

D2h Intelligent Assistant.                                                        …………...Opp.Party

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri. P.K.Tripathy, Advocate
2. For the O.P.                                 :-Sri. B.Singh, Advocate

 

Date of Filing:24.09.2021,  Date of Hearing :05.12.2022,  Date of Judgement : 10.01.2023

  Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The complaint is against Dish TV India Ltd. for deficiency in service. Late father of the Complainant has gifted a TV Set Videocon with D2H connection. Whenever there is any need of recharge unknown callers used to call as per their sweet will and as per their ability suitable to their time and there is no binding limit of time. The one-way system of the O.P. is not only irritating but also there is no any facility to answer them. The attitude of the O.P. callers is not only annoying but also nobody is there to handle the grievance. The callers have also no any manner and in a disciplined way call a customer. The is the main grievance of the Complainant. The Complainant has cited a number of mobile numbers from whom unwanted calls have been received. Repeated call to recharge D2H before the schedule date of expiry not only disturbing the complainant but also brought dissatisfaction in service of the O.P. and compelled to file the complaint.
2. The O.P. after appearance filed its version and submitted that Dish TV India Ltd. has been granted a licence to provide Direct to Home(DTH) television services and the brand name is ‘dishtv’. The complaint has been filed with malafide intention and it is misleading in nature. There is no cause of action for the Complainant/O.P. for the better service of O.P. the Complainant has continued and enjoyed long duration of the services. The O.P. is providing a world class viewing experience and there is no deficiency in service.

The Complainant is having DTH Connection customer I.D. No. 10350796008 installed at his residential premises. To make the life of customers easy and to enhance their experience of TV viewing notification, appointment or monthly subscription remainders are very common in business to up-date the customers as per their usage, to avoid unnecessary or abrupt discussion and to extend seamless experience. The TRAI Regulations 2017 in clause 16(2) & (3) also mandated the operator/distributor to provide prior notice to customer before any disconnection.

On 01.09.2021 as per Complainant’s demand his registered mobile number was removed from data base and was informed that he will not receive and was informed that he will not receive any promotional calls.

On 01.09.2021 after receiving the information from the Complainant about non-reception of Odia channels his package was immediately changed to “AAMARA ODIA COMBO” and informed him the revised monthly recharge amount Rs. 300/-(including 18% GST) for better service the Complainant has not disconnected the DISH TV Connection and enjoying continuing service. The Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

3. Perused the messages sent by the O.P. which are end to end encrypted and no outsider, even whats app can read or listen the messages transmitted to the listener. The O.P. has issued several messages for recharge of D2H service, issued promotional messages like “Enjoy Live Bhakti, special festival programs & more Bhakti Activa, ………..” and on 20.09.2021 to recharge Rs. 300/- to visit the site WWW.d2h.com or down load d2h infinity App etc. The messages sent by the O.P. seems to be computer fed and then the feed service messages are sent to the customer.

The Complainant is a senior citizen and enjoying D2H services from long past. No doubt technological developments in telecommunication services sector give facilities to a customer before terminating service and for welfare of the consumer like adequate choice, affordable tariff and good quality of service etc. can be intimated and basing on reply of the customer appropriate service is provided. It does not mean that in the name of promotion repeated messages shall be sent to a customer. In the present case the O.P. failed to establish that for the benefit of the Complainant messages are sent. Repeatedly the Complainant has expressed his annoyance about the undesired messages dated 30.08.2021, 13.09.2021 etc. but the O.P. from different numbers called the customer to continue service, which is the root cause of the dispute.

In the name of business promotion the O.P. cannot annoy a customer which has psychological impact. On a senior citizen: which brings dissatisfactions and it amounts to deficiency in service.

No law, regulations in our country promote to dissatisfy, annoy a customer, the regulations cited by the O.P. is not proper. The Telecommunication (Broadcasting and cable) services standards of Quality of Services and Consumer Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulations 2016 says about disconnection of broadcasting services related to television. Clause(2) and (3) gives a direction to the distributor before disconnection at least 15 days notice to be given to the subscriber and by scrolling on television or to send short messages to the registered mobile number subscriber be informed. In the present case from different mobile number calls are made and certainly a customer will think it as an important call but when he receives the messages of recharge from the distributor psychologically annoyed as leaving all his work, he attended the call.

4. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that the O.P. has not followed the Regulation 16 clause(2) and (3) in accordance to procedures and thereby deficient in service. Accordingly it is ordered:

 

6698606.  

The Complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P. is directed to sought for apology from the Complainant for the annoyed service provided within one month of this order failing which the O.P. shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh with 4% interest per annum till realisation. Further the O.P. is directed to follow TRAI Regulation, 2017 in letter and spirit for customer satisfaction.

No cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 10^th Jan. 2023.

Supply free copies to the parties.