DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.97 of 26.2.2019

                                      Decided on:         9.9.2024

Dr.Amit Gupta C/o Medlink Hospital, Main Road, Gurbax Colony, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Dish TV India Ltd., FC-19, Sector 16-A, Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India through its Managing Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Party

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi, Member   

ARGUED BY              

                                      Sh.Sachdev Vij, counsel for complainant.

                                      Sh.Pardeep Kumar, counsel for OP                                        

 ORDER

                                                PUSHVINDER SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint is filed by Dr.Amit Gupta   (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Dish TV India Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act).
2. It is averred in the complaint that the complainant has been availing the D2H provided by the OP since long having D2H ID 81262325. It is averred that in the month of March 2017, complainant could not recharge his D2H connection due to some personal reasons. It is averred that OP offered the complainant to recharge D2H with Rs.7152/- under the long term plan, valid for one year and was also assured that double of the amount i.e. Rs.14252/- will be credited to the account ID of the complainant alongwith additional credit of Rs.596/- as a long term benefit.
3. That believing in the promise and assurances of the OP, complainant recharged his account with Rs.7152/- as one year subscription valid up to March 2019, and as per the assurance of the OP double amount was credited in the account of the complainant but the OP deactivated the account of the complainant in September,2018 stating that balance is over.
4. That the same was reported to the customer care of OP but no satisfactory reply was given .The complainant also got served legal notice dated 1.10.2018 upon the OP with the request to refund the amount of Rs.14252 and to reactivate the connection of the complainant but of no avail. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of OP which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving directions to the OP to refund the amount of Rs.14252/-; to reactivate the connection of the complainant; to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/-towards costs of the complaint.
5. Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement having contested the complaint by raising preliminary objections that the present complaint has been filed against the OP with malafide intention; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. It is pleaded that on receipt of notice from this Hon’ble Forum, OP tried to contact the complainant on many occasions in order to settle the dispute but the complainant did  not cooperate with the OP. That the OP duly and diligently provided the complete service to the complainant and thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
6. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant is a valuable subscriber of OP having DTH connection bearing customer id No.81262325 since 30^th January,2013. It is further submitted that complainant was availing the DTH services from the OP by installing two DTH connections i.e. a parent connection and second is mirror connection and has taken subscription of plans “New Gold Sports” and “Mirror New Gold Sports” since installation of services. It is alleged that complainant has made recharge of Rs.7152/- on 30.3.2017 to enjoy DTH services for both connections for a period of one year validity. On receipt of recharge, same amount was credited in complainant’s account on 30.3.2017.That as per company policy i.e. discount on long term recharge, OP has credited an amount of Rs.596/- in complainant’s account having with OP on the same day. That OP has as per discount benefit plan, credited equal of recharge amount i.e. Rs.7152/- in complainant’s account on 31.3.2017.
7. It is averred that complainant was eligible to enjoy only for existing two DTH connections without any change in existing plan for two years view period or till consumption of balance amount credited in complainant’s account having with OP. It is averred that the complainant has subscribed additional third connection on 15.7.2017 for which he was never recharged any amount but used DTH services of an amount of Rs.3250/- which was debited from his account. Moreover, complainant has availed value added services of an amount of Rs.62/- without any recharge. Complainant requested to swap Set Top Box for which service visit of engineer was performed and Set Top Box was replaced, on account of which Rs.200/- and on account of STB swap Rs.200/- was charged but not paid by the complainant and the amount of Rs.400/- was deducted from the account of complainant on 25.7.2018.
8. It is further submitted that in case the customer fails to recharge for availed additional services, the view period got reduced on pro rata basis. It is averred that OP had deducted  due charges for availed services from the balance amount in the complainant’s account legally and due to lack of sufficient balance in complainant DTH account, view period was reduced from month of March 2019 to September,2018 on pro rata basis and DTH services got disconnected. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
9. In evidence, ld.counsel of the complainant tendered Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents i.e. Ex.C1 copies of messages print out,Ex.C2 copy of legal notice,Ex.C3 copy of postal receipt and closed the evidence.
10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Manpreet Sidhu, Authorized representative of OP alongwith documents, i.e. Ex.OP1 copy of account description,Ex.OP2 authority letter and closed the evidence.
11. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
12. The complainant is holder of Dish TV connection provided by the OP against a/c No.81262325. The complainant has alleged that he had received SMS from the OP at his registered mobile number whereby various offers for the recharge of the connection were made, copy of which is Ex.C1. An offer was then made to the complainant to recharge his D2H connection with an amount of Rs.7152/- under the long term plan scheme and which will be valid for a period of one year from the date of recharge and double the amount of the recharge i.e. Rs.14252/- will be credited to the account of the complainant. The complainant then recharged his connection with an amount of Rs.7152/-  in the month of March 2017 and as per the assurance of the Op double the amount of Rs.14251/- was credited to the account of the complainant and the recharge was valid up to 1^st March 2019 as per the message detail,Ex.C1.
13. The complainant has alleged that although an amount of Rs.14252/- was credited to his account and validity was extended to 1^st March 2019, yet, his connection was deactivated in the month of September,2018.The complainant has alleged that the matter was taken up with the customer care of the OP and even a legal notice dated 1.10.2018 was also served upon OP as per Ex.C2 for restoration of the connection of the complainant till 1^st March 2019. However, no suitable action was taken by the OP. The complainant, as such has prayed for the refund of the amount of Rs.14252/- credited to his account alongwith compensation and litigation charges on account of unfair trade practice adopted by the OP.
14. The OP in its written statement has submitted that the complainant was a consumer of the OP  using D2H connection against ID No.81262325 since 30.1.2013.The OP has submitted that the complainant was availing the benefit of two connections i.e. a parent connection and a mirror connection under the plans ‘New Gold Sports’ and ‘Mirror New Gold Sports’ since inception i.e. 30.1.2013.The OP has further submitted that the complainant made a recharge with an amount of Rs.7152/- on 30.3.2017 and on receipt of the recharge amount an equivalent amount was also credited to the account of the complainant on 30.3.2017. An additional amount of Rs.596/- was also credited to the account of the complainant on account of Long Term Recharge Policy of the OP, as per account statement,Ex.OP1.The OP has alleged that the complainant had subscribed an additional 3^rd connection on 15.7.2017 for which no payment was made by the complainant. The complainant had availed D2h services on the 3^rd connection for an amount of Rs.3250/- which was then deducted from the account of the complainant. In addition to above Rs.200/- on account of visit charges and Rs.200/- on account STB was also charged to the complainant and as such an amount of Rs.400/- was also deducted from the account of the complainant on 25.7.2018.The OP has submitted that the complainant has availed additional services as such the viewing period was reduced on pro rata basis from 1.3.2019 to September 2018 and DTH services of the complainant was then disconnected. OP has submitted that there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service adopted by it and has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
15. We have gone through the rival submissions of the parties and the evidence produced on record.
16. Admittedly the complainant was holder of D2H connection under ID No.81262325.The complainant had recharged for an amount of Rs.7152/- in the month of 3/2017 and an equivalent additional amount of Rs.7152/-was credited to the account of the complainant as per policy of the OP and balance of the complainant was Rs.14252/- as on 31.3.2017 and this balance was valid up to 1.3.2019. The complainant had availed the services up to September,2018 i.e. for 18 months from the recharge on March,2017 which includes extended six months viewership granted by the OP under the scheme and connection was then disconnected in the month of 9/2018. As such the extended six months period of viewership was curtailed by the OP by disconnecting his connection. 
17. The argument of the OP that an additional 3^rd connection was subscribed by the complainant on 15.7.2017 is not supported by any evidence. Even the argument regarding addition of value added services for which additional charges were levied is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, evidence of the complainant is unrebutted on the file as when OP furnished affidavit, Ex.OPA , he did not depose all facts as pleaded in the reply/version and has simply stated in the affidavit that the facts pleaded in the written reply be read in evidence. The affidavit, Ex.OPA has been furnished as evidence in the present complaint, so the facts which are pleaded in the reply/version should have been deposed specifically by way of affidavit.
18. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the account was unfairly deactivated in the month of September, 2018 which is unfair trade practice adopted by the OP .As such, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund the amount of Rs.7152/- to the complainant alongwith Rs.5000/-as compensation and Rs.2000/-as litigation expenses within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  
19.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           PUSHVINDER SINGH

                                              Member                          President