IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 17th day of June, 2023.
Filed on 04.01.2023
Present
1. Smt.P.R Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President-in-charge )
2. Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
CC/No.1/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Rakesh N P 1. Dish TV India Pvt.Ltd.
Thekke Kambalassery FC-19, Sector 16A, Film City
Komana, Ambalappuzha-688561 Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301
2. Sri.Pramod
Dish TV Dealer, Ernakulam
3. Sri.Shiyas
SS Enterprises, Airtel Payments-
Bank, Near SBI Town Branch
Near Dani Furniture
Alappuzha -688011
4. Sri.Nissar
Dish TV Technician
Alappuzha
(Ops 3 &4 are exparte)
(Adv.Karthik Narayanan for all Ops)
O R D E R
SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)
Brief facts of the complainant's case are as follows:-
The complainant had taken a subscription from the 1st opposite party’s Dish TV connection on 06.07.2022 through the opposite parties 3 and 4 for one year for an amount of Rs. 2800/-. The opposite parties offered free installation of the same. Accordingly, 3rd opposite party sent 4th opposite party, the technician for the installation. But the 4th opposite party demanded the installation charge of Rs. 350/-, the complainant was not ready to pay said amount since the 1st opposite party offered free installation. However, the complainant paid Rs.100/-. Due to the non-payment of installation expenses as demanded, the Dish TV was installed in a place where there was no signal. After the installation, when the complainant turned on the TV, he could not watch the TV since there was interruption in channels. The technician said that the said problem would be cleared later. Further he insisted to pay Rs.2800/-by Google pay the complainant did so. But the problem was not solved. The complainant contacted 3rd opposite party but he did not help him. Thereafter contacted the 2nd opposite party several times, he sent a technician who said that if the tree branches are cut and replaced, signal obstruction can be solved . The complainant did so but didn’t get the result. It was informed to the 2nd opposite party, who insisted to re-install the Dish for that he demanded Rs. 454/- for the re-installation charge. The complainant alleged that even after spending Rs.2,800/-, it is not possible to watch the TV programme. The above-mentioned acts of the opposite parties amount to a deficiency in service hence he filed the complaint and sought the following reliefs.
1. Direct opposite parties to take back the Dish TV with DTH Box and to refund the amount of Rs.2800/- as received from the complainant.
2. To pay compensation for deficiency of service and cost of the proceedings.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party in short is as follows:-
The 1st opposite party contended that the subscriber may take the Dish TV connection through Authorized dealers (DSA)/Dish TV website/Calling or messaging Customer Care either prepaid or postpaid. The DSA or the Customer Care as per policy of Dish TV, explains about the terms and condition and services to the subscriber and installs the Dish TV Equipment along with its accessories once the Subscriber accepts the terms and conditions and requests for installation. The services are provided by the 1st opposite party in accordance with the said term and conditions in compliance with rules and regulations. The opposite party reserves the right to deactivate the services, in case of violation of the agreed terms and conditions.
The complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and the complainant is guilty of suppression, concealment and misrepresentations of the true and material facts and therefore the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. 1st opposite party duly made all efforts to extend technical support. No cause of action remained as on the date of institution of the complaint. The complainant had taken subscription on 6th July 2022 through opposite parties 3 and 4 and the same was activated on 6/7/2022 under the scheme of offer “3000 Dishkiyon offer DSA HD”. As per terms and conditions, the subscriber was required to maintain the minimum subscription cost of Rs. 250/- per month and was further required to prepay Rs. 3000/- including GST against with the subscriber was entitle to get the cash back of Rs. 3000/- into its Dish Account. It is further submitted that the 3rd opposite party Rs. 2,800/- on behalf of complainant.
Further submitted that at the time of VC activation, there was no interruption in viewing TV channels. On 9th July 2022, the complainant called to the customer care and requested to send a technician as the complainant wanted to have its Dish TV reinstalled. On visit of the technician, the complainant requested to reinstall the Dish TV at some other location where upon the Technician told the complainant that the same will be done on the payment of Rs. 450/- as being reinstallation charges which the complainant denied to pay. The subscribers are free to change or select any channel or services by their own as available. Accordingly the complainant is active and has selected the channels as per his choice. The complainant is still active and watching his TV satisfactorily. The opposite party is engaged in providing world class viewing experience to its customers and upholding the interest of it subscribers is its priority and prime objective. There has been no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the present case as it has extended all the facilities to the complainant. The opposite party duly and diligently provided the complete service to the complainant. The complaint made by the complainant is false and baseless and the same is liable for outright rejection.
3. Version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in its present form and manner and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. The 2nd opposite party is engaged in providing world class after sales support service to all its DTH customer, and upholding the interest of Dish TV subscribers is its priority and prime objective. In the present case 2nd opposite party extended all the facilities to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party duly made all efforts to extend technical support. As per terms and condition, the subscriber was required to maintain the minimum subscription cost of Rs. 250/- per month and was further required to prepay Rs. 3000/- into its Dish which the subscriber was entitle to get the cash back of Rs. 3000/- into it Dish account. It is further submitted that the 3rd opposite party deposited Rs. 2800/- on behalf of complainant.
At the time of VC activation, there was no interruption in viewing TV channels. On 9th July 2022 the complainant called to the customer care and requested to send a Technician as the complainant wanted to have its Dish TV reinstalled. On visit of the technician the complainant requested to reinstall the Dish TV at some other location where upon the Technician told the complainant that the same will be done on the payment of Rs. 450/- as being reinstalling charges which the complainant denied to pay. Further the subscribers are free to change of select any channel or services by their own as available in the present case the complainant is active and has selected the channels as per his choice. This is pertinent to mention here that complainant is still active and watching his TV satisfactorily.
The present complaint is liable to be dismissed as there has been no cause of action against the 2nd opposite party as it has been providing the complete services to the complainant notwithstanding the 2nd opposite party has always been readily available and willing to resolve issues and redress grievances, if any, related to or arising in the course of the services provided.
It is vehemently denied that 2nd opposite party suggested to change the location of the installation while it was the complainant who wanted to have the Dish TV reinstalled at some other place and when the Technician apprised the complainant that the reinstallation will be chargeable and can be done on payment of Rs. 450/- where upon the complainant got furious and denied to pay. It is pertinent to mention herein that the complainant is regularly active and viewing the channels by selecting and deselecting the channels and reversing the unused amount. There is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. There has been no fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in performance in pursuance of the terms and condition. The Dish TV and Dish Infra/2nd opposite party have rather been very diligent in respect of provision of services. Further stated that the complainant has enjoyed uninterrupted service of Dish TV and still continuing. The deduction of the amount is made against the services given as per terms and conditions. It has been conveyed to the complainant that Rs. 450/- will be chargeable if the complainant wants to get the Dish TV reinstalled at some other place. The rest of the contents were wrong and hence denied.
The complaint is filed by the complainant is devoid of any merits against the 2nd opposite party and has been filed solely for the purpose of ulterior motive harassment and defamation of the 2nd opposite party and Dish TV and therefore, the complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Points that arose for consideration are as follows:-
1. Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service? If so what is the quantum of compensation?
2. Reliefs and costs?
5. The complainant appeared in person. Evidence of the complainant consists of oral as well as documentary evidence. Ext.A1 was marked from his side. RW1 was examined from the side of opposite parties and Ext.B1 was marked. Thereafter heard both sides.
Point No. 1:-
Admittedly the complainant is a subscriber of the 1st opposite party. Accordingly, the disputed Dish TV of the 1st opposite party was installed on 06.07.2022 in the complainant’s house. The allegation is that the installation was not proper since at the right beginning itself the complainant unable to watch the TV since there was an interruption in viewing TV channels by lines and was examined by the technician of the 2nd opposite party. Though the complainant had done everything as directed by the technician to receive the signal, not get any positive result. Further, allegation is that the technician suggested to re-install the Dish TV at some other location for getting the channels on payment of Rs. 454/- as the installation charge. The entire allegations are denied by the opposite parties. Opposite parties contended that the subscribers are free to change or select any channel or services on their own as available. At the time of activation of the channel, there was no interruption in viewing the channel. Here the complainant is still watching his TV satisfactorily. The learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 pointed out that the complainant activated three pay channels on 5/12/2022. But it was denied by the complainant. On perusal of Ext.B1, account statement we found that said submission of the opposite party is true. Hence we can be safely concluded that the contention of the complainant that he is not able to see the channel till date is utterly false. Rw1, the 2nd opposite party admitted that within one week after the installation the complainant contacted him with a complaint of signal issues and a technician was deputed and inspected the same but who could not be found any defect as alleged by the complainant. Accordingly, the said complaint was closed. On perusal of the evidence on records, nothing is before us to show that the complainant contacted the opposite parties several times and communicated the defect of the disputed DTH. Moreover, there is no supporting evidence, except the oral testimony of PW1, to show that the said Dish TV is suffering from any defect or occurring in any installation problem. Hence we find that complainant failed to establish his case with cogent evidence. So in the absence of reliable evidence we are of the view that the complaint is devoid of any merit.
Point No. 2:-
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 17th day of June 2023. Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.Rakesh N P (Complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of UPI transaction
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sri.Pramod (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of statement of account
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
