D.O.F. 29.07.2010

                                                                                   D.O.O. 07.02.2011

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:   Sri. K. Gopalan                                     :        President

                Smt. K.P. Preethakumari                     :         Member

                Smt. M.D. Jessy                                    :        Member

Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2011.

C.C.No.190/2010

Venugopalan K.C.,

S/o. Chattukutty,

Preethalayam,

Chattukappara P.O.                                              :         Complainant

Kannur District

 (Rep. by Adv. Ravindran T.)   

1.  Dish TV India Ltd,

     Essel House, B-10,    

     Lawrence Road,

     Industrial Area,

     New Delhi - 110035.                                       :         Opposite parties

2.  DTH Communications,

     1^st Floor, Lakshmi Complex,

     Nr. Koyili Hospital, Kannur.

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay ` 13,650 including     ` 3,400 paid as connection fee and ` 250 spent for free paid connection together with ` 10,000 as compensation with cost.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  Attracted by the advertisement by the opposite party that life time free connection without monthly payment will be given to those consumers who paid Dish TV connection, the complainant took Dish TV connection in the month of April, 2006 from 2^nd opposite party the authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party.  It had been maintained till June, 2010 without any rent.  But 2^nd opposite party disconnected that connection without notice in the month of July, 2010.  When complainant complained of this to 2^nd opposite party he told that the connection will not be restored without recharge. He also assured that he will enquire about the disconnection and till then he will be provided prepaid connection.  He also assured that the amount will be returned as and when the lifetime connection is being reinstated.  Believing his words complainant paid the amount.  At the time of payment 2^nd opposite party again assured that the problem will be solved within a week.  But there was no action on the side of 2^nd opposite party to solve the problem. When complainant made enquiry with 1^st opposite party they told that the scheme was intended for a period of 10 years and 2^nd opposite party has no right to disconnect the connection and there is no need to remit any amount for the connection.  The deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party is purely an unfair trade practice.  Complainant took his connection only upon the assurance of the 2^nd opposite party and the advertisement.  Complainant lost his amount and suffered much mental pain.  Hence this complaint.  In pursuance of the notice 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  Even after receiving notice 2^nd opposite party remained absent throughout, though several attempts has been made to settle the matter through 1^st opposite party.

          1^st opposite party filed version contending as follows : Answering opposite party is  innocent and has not committed any Act of deficiency in service the complainant was satisfactorily enjoyed the service provided by this opposite party during the period he was getting channels.   No complaint was registered against this opposite party before the Customer Care Centre.  Complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant took connection under Dish Free Scheme and under Dish Free Scheme, a customer was entitled to view Free-to-Air-Channels free for life but the said Scheme was subject to the condition that the subscriber would not renew his package during the lifetime of the connection.   If the subscriber renews his connection, then the subscriber losses his right to enjoy FTA channels free for life and then he was required to pay renewal fees for further enjoying channels.  The complainant in the instant case though took the connection under Dish Free Scheme renewed his package on 12^th July, 2010 out of his own volition in gold package and this renewal is entitled him to enjoy FTA channels free for life under the special scheme.  Thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the on this ground also. The complainant enjoyed the service of 1^st opposite party till July 12, 2010 without any complaint on the payment of renewal fees on 12.07.2010 the complainant became disentitled to view channel of Dish Free Package free of cost.  This answering opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.   Hence to dismiss the complaint.

          Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.     Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.

3.     Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1.  1^st opposite party has adduced no evidence.  2^nd opposite party remained absent throughout.

Issues 1 to 3 :

          Attracted by advertisement and assurance of 2^nd opposite party the complainant took dish tv connection in April, 2006 under the Dish Free Scheme.  Till 12.07.2010 he had been enjoying the scheme as assured by 2^nd opposite party.  But thereafter it was stopped by 2^nd opposite party without notice.  When he complained 2^nd opposite party advised to recharge by payment for prepaid connection and meanwhile he will settle the problem and refund the amount.   But he did not solved the problem.

          1^st opposite party contended that complainant enjoyed the service of 1^st opposite party without any complaint till 12.07.2010.  Complainant became disentitled to view channels of Dish Free Package free of cost.  Hence there is no liability on the part of 1^st opposite party.

          The version together with Ext.A1 makes it clear that complainant has taken dishtv connection from 2^nd opposite party.  It is an admitted fact that till disconnection there was no problem.  The real issue for consideration arose out of disconnection.  Complainant adduced evidence that it was disconnected without notice by 2^nd opposite party.  1^st opposite party in their version stated that 2^nd opposite party has no right to disconnect the connection.  Moreover 1^st opposite party has stated that complainant is not intended to view channel of Dish Free Package free of cost because of the reason of making the payment of the renewal fees on 12.07.2010.  It is quite evident that renewal fee was paid since the connection was disconnected by 2^nd opposite party.  Under such situation complainant has no other way except accepting advise of the 2^nd opposite party for getting the connection.  It can also be assured that 2^nd opposite party might have assured complainant that he will settle the matter.  Here is the situation to take into account the reason why the 2^nd opposite party remained absent without entering appearance before the Forum even if he was properly served.  It is quite evident that 2^nd opposite party purposefully created the situation to compel the complainant to make payment of the renewal fee, disentitling the complainant to view channels of Dish Free Package free of cost.  2^nd opposite party is well aware of this terms and conditions well and good since he is authorized dealer of 1^st opposite party.  This should have been a reason for his non-appearance before the Forum.  When all these facts have been taken together it can only be concluded that there is deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party that clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.  Creation of the situation compelling complainant to remain  in a helpless position purposefully and that of his absence before the Forum by 2^nd opposite party leads to undue the conclusion that 2^nd opposite party has committed the offence of unfair trade practice.  The pleadings and evidence adduced by the complainant reveals that the entire claim of the complainant is against 2^nd opposite party.  The entire sufferings of the complainant is as a result of the offence of unfair trade practice committed by 2^nd opposite party.  Hence we are of the view that the 2^nd opposite party is liable to met the loss sustained by the complainant.

          The case of the complainant is that he has paid 3,400 for dishtv connection and ` 250 spent for free paid connection.  In cross examination also complainant deposed that he has paid ` 250.  These amounts paid by the complainant is liable to be refunded by 2^nd opposite party.  He alone is liable to pay back the amount.  Complainant who was entitled to view Free-to-Air-Channels free for life disentitled to enjoy this claim due to the unfair trade practice committed by 2^nd opposite party. Hence 2^nd opposite party is liable to pay compensation of an amount of    ` 2,500 which in our view will meet the end of justice.  Hence 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is liable to refund ` 3,650 which the complainant has paid and an amount of ` 2,500 as compensation towards sufferings of the complainant together with cost of this litigation.  Thus the issue No.1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay an amount of ` 3,650 (Rupees Three Thousand Six Hundred and Fifty only) towards the payments made by the complainant and        ` 2500 (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation together with ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation, within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to execute as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

                          Sd/-                    Sd/-                     Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Receipt dated 12.07.2010.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Venugopalan S.

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                          /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT