Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/17/75

Jaswinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. Mohinder Singh,Adv

23 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                                 Consumer Complaint No. :  75 of 12.12.2017

                                 Date of decision                    :     23.07.2018

 

Jaswinder Kaur, aged about 49 years, wife of Sh. Jasvinder Singh, (saini) resident of Kothi No.87-A/2-A, Hargobind Nagar, Rupnagar,  Tehsil & District Rupnagar

                                                                 ......Complainant

                                             Versus

     1. Dish TV India Ltd. Fifth Floor, Fun Republic Building, Opposite Laxmi Industrial Estate, Link Road, Andheri West, Mumbai, Maharashtra through its Proprietor and Chief Executive Officer or Manager Incharge

2.  Bagga Electronics, Shop No.13, Adda Market, Nangal, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar, Distributor Dish TV, Ltd. North Zone India through its Proprietor Vijay Kumar Bagga and also its Manager Incharge   

                                                                          ....Opposite Parties

                         Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                     Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

 

                        SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

                        SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant 

 Sh. Varun Garg, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.1

          O.P. No.2 exparte

 

                                           ORDER

              SH. KARNAIL SINGH AHHI, PRESIDENT

 

1.    Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of mental, financially and physical harassment; to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses; any other relief deemed fit by this Ld. Forum and sub connection/child connection may kindly be ordered to be operative with immediately effect in the interest of justice. 

 2.   Brief facts made out from the complaint are that complainant is subscriber/customer of the O.Ps. and got installed the Dish T.V.  parent connection VC No.01510779192 and sub connection/child connection VC No.01521507872 for entertainment and livelihood of the family in the free time. Specially sub connection/child connection is installed for father in law, who is aged about 85 years now he is spending his time by listening Gurbani and News etc provide by the O.Ps. and also rest of the family enjoying the day by watching programs provided by the O.Ps. The O.Ps. through VC No.01510779192 parent connection. The complainant and her family were enjoying the fruits of the program provided by the O.Ps. by paying the monthly charges. The earlier package of service was Rs.508/- per month, in which Rs.200 were charged for sub connection/child connection and rest amount was package amount for the parent connection. It subscription date was valid till 29.11.2017. This can be clearly ascertained by the message sent to the registered cell No.98153-58606 with the O.P. on 3.11.2017. On 25.11.2017, the complainant received a telephonic call from the O.Ps mentioned above that if you are interested a take a scheme/package of the company for availing the services of the O.P. as non stop programs providing for the next one year you pay Rs.590/- for each connection. Parent connection as well as child connection. This is the scheme of the company through this the hundred channels programs will be provided and if you want to take some extra channels then you take another pack for those require channels by paying the charges. On 26.11.2017, the complainant received the same telephonically calls from the O.Ps. regarding the said scheme/package. Then the complainant enquired regarding the mode of payment of the package amount then complainant was directed you deposit the said amount in the Dish TV/O.Ps. account which will be adjusted and you will get the message of the same on you registered cell number. Then the complainant get the recharge of the parent connection VC No.01510779192 and child connection VC No.01521507872 each for Rs.590/-. On 26.11.2017, the message regarding the same have been received on the registered cell number of the husband of the complainant and the complainant also got recharge for package Rs.64/- per month for in entertainment channels. The message of the same is also given by the O.Ps. In the package given by the OPs on parent connection the channels ABP News and PTC News was not provided by the O.Ps, which lateron added by the O.Ps. on the request of the complainant for which the OPs have reduced the switch off dated 12.8.2018 as earlier the switch off of date of the package was 31.10.2018, here now the question arise when the package of Rs.590/- is for non stop supply of programs for one year, then if the ABP News and PTC News is not included in the said package then how can the OPs reduced the period of one year to 10 months only. They may also increased the Hindi Entertainment package amount as both are the different they cannot mix the both package. When child connection was installed then complainant was told that for every package available of the parent connection only Rs.200/-. will be charged for second/child connection in this way they have illegally charged the said amount. The parent connection is in operation after 26.11.2017 but the child connection is not been activated till then although the O.Ps. have received the payment i.e. package amount and the complainant have received the said acknowledge by way of messages given on the registered mobile. Till then from 27.11.2017 the complainant is trying to the tune of 2 hours to 4 hours daily till today and complaining the matter to the O.ps. but the O.ps. linger on the same and not activated the child connection, moreover the complainant father in law is also deprived from the right of entertainment although amount was paid. Hence, this complaint.

  3.  On notice, O.P. No.1 appears through counsel and filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is not maintainable in this present form; that the present complaint is false, frivolous, unwarranted and against the settled principle of law; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and is intentionally concealing the material facts; that this Hon'ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try this matter as no cause of action against the O.P. No.1 has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum; that the present complaint deserves no standing before this Hon’ble Forum in view of the fact that the complainant never served any notice upon the answering O.P. before the institution of the complaint, had the complainant done the same, the answering O.P. would have tried to resolved the issue, if any, at the very instant; that the complainant has no valid cause of action against the answering O.P.  to proceed with the case. On merits, it is stated that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the answering O.P. In the present case it has extended all the facilities to the complainant, the services got disturbed was solely due to the personal reasons of the complainant. The answering O.P. No.1 duly provided all the benefits to the complainant and thus cannot be held liable for deficiency of services as claimed by the complainant and it is pertinent to mention that OP No.1 provided all the services to the complainant prior to the date of institution of the complaint by the complainant before the Ld. Consumer Forum. Complainant should not be allowed to take benefit from the litigation when the O.P. has provided complete services to the complainant and in addition, is taking all steps to provide all support and assistance to the complainant. The issues which was faced by the complainant on her connection was due to her reason and the complainant also did not served any notice to the O.P. No.1 before institution of this complaint. The issues as faced by the complainant would have been resolved amicably in case the complainant approaches the complainant directly with the issues pertaining to her connection. The complainant purchased the parent connection on 9.8.2010 and child connection on 27.10.2014 and since then happily enjoyed the services. It is to bring into the notice of this Forum that till 25.11.2017 the connections were activated in New Super Family Pack and the complainant was well aware of the fact that as per the company policies subscriber has to pay for parent connection and the offer which has been taken on the parent connection will automatically apply for child connection by paying the monthly rental of Rs.225/- per month. Any higher pack taken on part connection, the child connection will show all the channels opted on parent connection. It is further stated that the answering OP duly informed the complainant about the eligibility criteria at the time of taking the child connection by the complainant and the same has been provided on its website which is in public domain and attached herewith as Annexure for ready reference. Therefore, complainant knowing the same facts opted for a lower package as per his own will on both of his VCs and therefore the package which was opted by the complainant got downgraded. That, upon reaching with an amount of Rs.590/- on 26.11.2017, complainant instantly got the offer on his parent connection for a period of one year, but the same could not be credited on the child connection as per the policies of the company, as the child connection was linked to parent connection at the time of recharge. In order to get the same benefit on his child connection, if the complainant would have called on the customer care of the O.P. No.1, the offer would have been credit to the child connection. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayer has been made dismissal thereof. 

4.    On being put to the notice, none appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2, accordingly, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2018.

 

5.    On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered her duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C30 and closed the evidence. The O.P.  No.1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. Sandeep Raj Roy, Authorized representative of OP NO.1 Ex.OP1 along with documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence.    

6.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.

7.    Complainant counsel Sh. Mohinder Pal Singh, argued that complainant got installed the Dish TV parent connection VC.01510779192 and sub connection/child connection VC No.01521507872 for entertainment. When complainant and her family was enjoying the fruits of the program. by depositing Rs.200/- towards child connection and Rs.308/- towards parent connection and it was valid up to 29.11.2017. That on 25.11.2017 complainant received telephonic call from the OP, if complainant deposit Rs.590/- for each connection then she will enjoy up to 31.10.2018. Accordingly, the complainant deposited the said amount and on 26.11.2017 complainant received telephonic call from the O.P. qua the package, but OP released the parent connection only, whereas, the child connection was stopped despite deposit Rs.590/-. Complainant was in need of ABP News and PTC News Channels, for that O.P. asked to deposit the charges separately. The learned counsel further argued that qua the deposit of Rs.590/-, photocopy of the message Ex.C2. Then for parent connection, complainant received message copy of which Ex.C4 and switch off date mentioned 31.10.2018. But not released the child connection. When OP did not release the child connection then she has to file present complaint and after filing complaint, child connection was released with modification that switch off date is 12.8.2018, which amounts to deficiency in service and malpractice. Lastly prayed to allow the complaint with cost.

8.    Sh. Varun Garg, counsel for OP No.1 argued that the parent connection of complainant is in existence since 09.08.2010 whereas child connection is w.e.f. 27.10.2014 and since then complainant has been enjoying the programs. Complainant deposited Rs.590/- for the release of the parent connection but OP never asked the complainant to deposit Rs.590/- towards child connection. Then learned counsel prayed that for the benefit of the child connection or other channels complainant has to deposit the charges of super family pack not of routine. Learned counsel by referring the pleadings argued that there is no delay in release of said channels and as per the terms and condition the switch off date is 12.8.2018 has rightly been incorporated. Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint with special requests on the arguments of OP that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as complaint is not maintainable and there is specific provisions of arbitration. If complainant aggrieved with any of the act of OP then as per the agreement between the parties, she has to avail the remedy for arbitration.      

9.    Firstly to go whether complaint is maintainable or the matter should be referred to the arbitration and this forum has no jurisdiction. Jaswinder Kaur has mentioned her address at Hargobind Nagar, Rupnagar, whereas, OP No.2 has the address of Rupnagar, whereas OP No.1 mentioned address at Mumbai. The deposit of money for the released of parent connection as well as child connection and then deposit of Rs.508/- then deposit of Rs.590/- are the admitted facts, because sufficient evidence has come on the file. Keeping in view the address of OP No.2 and complainant, this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction and the matter is a consumer dispute. So far the arguments of the O.P. counsel that this Forum has no jurisdiction is without merit, because OP did not placed on file any documents or the terms/conditions settled between the parties qua refers of dispute to the arbitration It was mandatory for the O.P. to place on file the terms and condition. Simply taking plea qua arbitration is without merit because complainant hails from District Rupnagar then OP No.2 has the office in the same district. Release of connection as well as enjoyment of the channels situate in this District. So arguments of OP qua the jurisdiction is without merit.

10.  Coming to the merit of the complaint, the complainant counsel has taken the plea that the subscription was valid till 29.11.2017 but on receipt of phone call by the complainant from the OP dated 25.11.2017, she deposited Rs.590/- for each channel and its receipt is Ex.C2. On deposit of said amount OP issued message mentioning the validity and switch off date is 31.10.2018, copy of which Ex.C4. Ex.C5 also proves the validity upto 31.10.2018. The complainant lateron received message qua the validity upto 12.8.2018. But that is without any pre-intimation and their copies are Ex.C16 & Ex.C17.

11.  As per the arguments of the complainant counsel, complainant feel deficiency in service, firstly for the period of 9/10 days i.e. w.e.f. 26.11.2017 to 05.12.2017, because the child connection was released on 6.12.2017. Only the dispute of maximum 10 days but the message received by the complainant from the OP proves the validity upto 31.10.2018. But Ex.C16 speaks is 12.8.2018 which was cut down after deposit of Rs.590/- each channel. Going through the documentary evidence, complainant came to know for scheme through phone dated 25.11.2017 and Rs.590/- deposited on 26.11.2017. Thereafter, the parent connection came into operation. But no operation qua child connection. As per the complainant version when complainant informed the OP qua the release of child connection that was also released without delay. So the delay as per the complainant version is not much material because as soon as OP came to know qua the deposit of Rs.590/- the channel was released.

12.  At the same time, the plea taken by the complainant qua the switch off date is concern i.e. more affective. Ex.C4 speaks AM-Dish TV switch off date 31.10.2018, whereas Ex.C16 speaks PTC News has been activated and revised switch off date is 12.8.2018. When earlier OP switch off date mention 31.10.2018 then by changed or modified to 12.8.2018 has no explanation on the file. No doubt OP has the right to deal the channel in accordance to the provision of law, but at the same time, complainant has also to enjoy the channels as per the terms/conditions and it was firstly given the date switch off 31.10.2018 but later on change 12.8.2018 it amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled for the activation of both the channels will remain in continuity till 31.10.2018.

13.  In the light of discussion made above, the Forum has come to the conclusion that so far the relief of non installation of the child connection is rejected. However, the relief to enjoy both the connections up to 31.10.2018 stand accepted and accordingly the complaint is partly allowed. However, the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.

14. The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed and consigned to Record Room.

 

                     ANNOUNCED                                                    (KARNAIL SINGH AHHI)

                     Dated .23.07.2018                          PRESIDENT
 

 

 

                                                          (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                             MEMBER