Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/744/2017

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Harnek Singh Sandhu

07 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/744/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	07/06/2018

 

Manoj Kumar son of Sh. Rameshwar Dass, resident of H.No.496, Phase-6, Mohali, Punjab-160055.

....Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1]       Dish T.V. India Limited, through Authorized Signatory/ General Manager, FC-19, Sector 16-A, Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India – 201301.

2]       Ashwani, Garg Electronic, Shop No.9, Khajari, Sec.52, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person along with Sh.Harnek Singh, Advocate.
	:	Sh. Brijender Kaushik, Counsel for OP No.1.
	;	None for OP No.2.

                       

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

1.         Sh. Manoj Kumar, Complainant has preferred this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Dish T.V. India Ltd. and Anr. (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that among various plans provided by the Opposite Party No.1, he chose “Pick by Channel” monthly plan, costing him Rs.174/- inclusive ST. He enjoyed the said plan without any problem till June 2017. On 1^st July, after coming into force the GST, the price of the aforesaid plan came down to Rs.130/- inclusive GST. Keeping in mind that his monthly price is Rs.130/- the Complainant recharged his account in advance for Rs.2379/- to avoid disconnection and late fee charges. However, on 23.10.2017, the Complainant was shocked to saw that Dish T.V. was charging Rs.283/- instead of Rs.130/- as per chosen plan by him. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No.1 regarding wrong charging, with a request to register his Complaint, but the Executive refused to register any Complaint and informed that they would charge Rs.174/- monthly charges for his selected channels/ plan, which according to the Complainant is totally illegal.  Hence, alleging the aforesaid act and conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.     
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party No.1 contested the Complaint and filed its reply, inter alia, pleading that as a result of changeover in the tax structure from Service Tax regime to GST regime, due to some technical snag in the software of answering Opposite Party, in accepting the commands as per the new tax structure, some automated inadvertent errors have been crept in the system in the process of billing of the invoices for few subscribers under different categories. The instant Complaint is the effect of the said technical sang in the system of answering Opposite Party, which was duly informed and explained to the Complainant. However, the Complainant was not ready to listen to anything and filed the instant Complaint with malafide intent and to enrich himself by dragging the answering Opposite Party in this wasteful litigation. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Opposite Party No.2 filed its separate reply pleading that it is not authorized agent of Opposite Party No.1 and is only authority to recharge Dish T.V. with its demo number and other set top box like Tata Sky and Airtel mobile connections. It has been maintained that answering Opposite Party has no authority to change any plan and channel of the Complainant and even it does not know what plan is running on the connection of the Complainant. The power to change the plan and deducting any amount is with the Opposite Party No.1. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinder.
6.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and counter affidavits. 
7.         We have gone through the entire evidence and heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties.
8.         The Opposite Party No.1 in its written version has categorically admitted in Para No.6 that during the period when the systems were in updation mode, wrong amount of Rs.283/- was reflected in the account of the Complainant and it was shown due to a technical system error. In this backdrop, we are of the concerted view that the excess amount was reflected in the bills raised by the Opposite Party, which ought to have been refunded/adjusted in the subsequent bills of the Complainant, which they failed to do. This in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service and the excess amount charged from the Complainant is required to be adjusted in the future/subsequent bills of the Complainant.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed:-

[a]    To adjust the amount of Rs.771/- excess charged from the Complainant in his future/subsequent bills;

[b]    To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]    To also pay a sum of Rs.2500/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

10.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @6% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [b] & [c] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from making compliance of the directions contained in sub-para [a] above. 
11.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced                                       

07.06.2018

                                

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

“Dutt”