Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/78/2023

Dr. Arvind Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISH TV INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mohit Sharma

23 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.     

 

                                                 Complaint No.       78 of 2023                                                                      Date of Institution: 22.06.2023

                                                 Date of order:                 23.08.2024

 

Dr. Arvind Garg 46 years, C/o Arvind Hospital & Heart Centre, Delhi Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana-127306. Mobile No.9812141770.

                                                                   ..Complainant.

                                                VERSUS

1. DISH TV INDIA LTD., Through its Managing Director, FC-19, Sector-16A, Film City, Noida-201301, Uttar Pradesh.
2. DISH TV, Through its Nodal Officer, B-29, Okhla Phase-I, First Floor, New Delhi-110020

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before-        Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal……PRESIDENT.

                   Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla……………MEMBER.

 

Argued by: Sh. Mohit Sharma, Adv. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Kumar Sharma, Adv. for OP.

 

O R D E R

 

1.                Dr. Arvind Garg (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) alleging that the complainant had renewed his Dish TV subscription having three set up boxes installed  at his home VC Nos.02535140151 later changed to 07212115307 (Primary), 02535099300 and 02535099339 on dated 14.02.2023 making online payment of Rs. 20,844/-. It is pertinent to mention here that OPs had offered  one month free extension on cumulative recharge of one year and after the recharge, “switch off date” was 13.03.2024 with package name as Titanium HD HSM with monthly tariff as Rs. 1736/-. On dated 19.03.2023, the complainant enquired customer support staff about recording services on primary set up box, for which complainant was told that for the said service, complainant had to pay Rs.199/- annually. After some time package tariff was changed to Rs. 1991/- per month with package remaining the same as Titanium HD HSM. Complainant immediately enquired about the same with the customer care centre support staff who told that the complainant has to pay the current tariff as complainant had changed the package by opting for recording facilities. Moreover, at no point of time, complainant was told that if complainant opts for recording facilities, the package tariff would change from Rs. 1736/- to Rs.1991/- per month, whereas complainant was told that he would be charged Rs.199/- only for one year. Complainant requested OPs to correct the switch off date and refund the balance amount of his subscription and stop the Dish TV services but all in vain. It was further submitted that the complainant served a legal notice on 17.01.2023 upon the opposite party by regd. post through his counsel Sh.S.K.Jha but the opposite party did not reply the same. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and the complainant has filed this complaint

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed his written statement.  The OPs in written statement had taken preliminary objections like maintainability, locus-standi and suppression of material facts.  It was submitted that the complainant had renewed his subscription by a cumulative recharge of one year and he was benefited with one month free extension with switch off date to 13.03.2024. It is pertinent to mention here that “Switch off Date” was the date of expiry of the services or subscription of a subscriber. In the present case as the complainant renewed his subscription for one year and also got a free extension of subscription for another one month the switch off date was recorded as 13.03.2024. On 19.03.2023, the complainant had contacted the customer care team regarding the issue that he was not able to use the recording service on his VC07212115307. With a view to resolve the particular issue, the customer care team conveyed that the recording services were not available for the concerned VC and can be initialized with a payment of Rs. 174/- per year. The complainant had agreed to purchase the recording services for a period of one year for the said price which is one of the ground due to which the switch off date was reduced from 13.03.2023 to 27.01.2024. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs out of goodwill gesture had proposed the complainant for waiver of one month against his subscription amount alongwith restoration of his old pack of services. But the complainant refused to the proposal. The complainant is not entitled to get any claim amount from the OPs and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                The Learned counsel for the complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-6, Marked-A to Marked-F and evidence of the complainant was closed vide order dt.05.12.2023.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the OPs in evidence tendered the affidavit Ex.RW1/A and the document Ex.OPE/1 to Ex.OPE/5 and evidence of the OPs was closed vide order dt.09.04.2024.

 5.               We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

6.                While having due regards to the contentions of learned counsels for both the parties, it is observed that the basic issue arised when the complainant had renewed his Dish TV subscriptions having  three set up boxes installed at his residence on 14.02.2023 for a year by making online payment of Rs.20,844/-

(@1737/- per month) and OPs did not grant one month free extension available on cumulative recharge of one year. Subsequently, further issues arised because of complainant’s opting for recording facility and revision of package. The OP has also accepted the facts of recharging but stated that free extension was granted but due to subscription of recording facility and change of package switch off date was shortened after accommodating charges for additional facility / revision of package. Nevertheless, the OPs out of goodwill gesture had offered the complainant for waiver of one month subscription amount and restoration of old pack of services but the complainant refused for the same. It appears that the complainant is satisfied with the services of the OPs, that is why he is continuing with the services of OPs. Adjustment of charges for addition services/revision of package not clearly explained to him and the same has caused this complaint.

7.                In the light of above mentioned facts and circumstances  and evidences placed on record coupled  with arguments advanced by the counsel for both the parties, the present complaint is allowed and following orders are passed in the interest of justice.

1. OPs to pay Rs.1737/- being subscription charges for one month in lieu of free extension on accumulative recharge of one year.
2. OPs to pay Rs.1,100/- (Rs. One Thousand One Hundred only) for mental agony and harassment and as litigation expenses.

 The opposite parties are directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which OPs shall pay interest of 9% from the date of filing of complaint. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.