Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                        The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                        2. The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are offering direct-to-home transmission of T.V viewing.  The opposite parties made to believe that they have enabled millions of customers with its unmatched products and value added services.  According to the complainant, he has got only few channels since 16.07.2015 and he did not get any channel facilities from 16.08.2015.  The dish T.V account of the complainant was active up to 16.09.2015.  The complainant made so many complaint with regard to the non-availability of the channel and the opposite parties assured the complainant that opposite parties would be redressed his complaint.  It is contended that on 17.07.2015 and 18.08.2015 the complainant received SMS from the opposite parties with regard to the redressal of his grievances.  On 20.08.2015, 26.08.2015 and on 03.09.2015 the opposite parties sent SMS to the complainant with regard to the monthly payment, recharge amount and current balance of the complainant with the opposite parties.  According to the complainant, even though he sent so many SMS to the opposite parties, the opposite parties purposefully evaded to redress the genuine complaints.  All these acts of the opposite parties are grave deficiency in service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this petition before this Forum for directing the opposite parties to provide Dish T.V connection, compensation etc. etc.

                        3. The Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  At the time of filing, the complainant filed a petition for an interim order directing the opposite parties, to restore the Dish T.V connection and the petition is numbered as I.A.No.78/15 and the petition is also allowed.

                        4. The opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance before the Forum and filed 2 separate memos dated 30.10.2015 and 19.11.2015 respectively.  The opposite parties applied before this Forum to grant time for filing, vakalath and time for version.  Though this Forum granted several time to the opposite parties they failed to file version or even failed to appear before the Forum to defend their case.  In the light of the above stated circumstances, we decided to frame the following issues:

1. Whether the opposite parties are committed deficiency in service e to the complainant?
2. Regarding cost and relief?

             5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 and marked Ext.A1 series.  When we go through the proof affidavit it can be seen that the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of this complaint.  Ext.A1 series is SMS sent to opposite parties on 31^st August 2015, 1^st September 2015, 4^th September 2015 and 10^th September 2015.  PW1 deposed in his proof affidavit that he is a customer of the opposite parties and regularly paying the monthly subscription of Rs.255/- and the channel facilities was partly affected from 16.07.2015 and subsequently on 16.08.2015 the whole channel facility was exhausted.  He again deposed that he sent SMS to the opposite parties and the opposite parties replied through SMS to him with regard to the recharge and monthly subscription etc. etc.  PW1 deposed that even though the opposite parties informed him that an assistance of technicians are available for redressing the grievances but the opposite parties did not redress the grievances.  According to PW1, the act of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and the attitude and approach of them are highly affected him mentally and it has to be compensated.  Though the opposite parties are appeared before the Forum as stated above, they did not turn up for cross-examination.  Hence the evidence adduced by PW1 is unchallengeable as far as the opposite parties are concerned.  After the closing of the evidence, we heard the complainant.

                        6. Point Nos. 1 and 2:-  Considering the nature and circumstances of this case, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together.  When we peruse the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case, it reveals that the complainant is a customer of opposite parties.  The opposite parties are providing channel facilities to the complainant on monthly subscription.  It is also proved that from 16.08.2015 onwards the whole Dish T.V facilities were exhausted and through Ext.A1 series the complainant (PW1) sent so many SMS to the opposite parties with regard to the non-functioning of the channel.  In proof affidavit, PW1 categorically deposed that on 17.07.2015, 18.08.2015 and 22.08.2015 the opposite parties sent SMS to the complainant and assured for the redressal of his grievances.  It is also come out in evidence to the effect that even though the complainant (PW1) take drastic steps to cure the channel defect the opposite parties are purposefully evaded from redressing the genuine grievances.  PW1 argued that being an advocate by profession he is in need of T.V channel facilities as a social member and an enlightened member of the profession.  Again he submitted that for sending different SMS and for conducting this case before this Forum he spent so many days and all these are highly affected his day to day professional matters.  The opposite parties are also liable to compensate this aspect apart from the deficiency in service for providing channel facilities.  When we examine the whole evidence of this case, we can come to a conclusion that the evidence adduced by the complainant as PW1 in this case is believable and highly probable.  Though the opposite parties are appeared before this Forum but they failed to adduce any evidence on their part.  Hence it can be seen that the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case is proved and the complaint can be allowed.  Considering the nature and evidence before us, we find that all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 and 2 found in favour of the complainant. 

                        7. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to provide Dish TV connection to the complainant within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the order.
2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order.

3.  The Order in I.A.No.75/15 is made absolute in pursuance of Order No.1.

4.  A cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) also ordered against the opposite parties with 10% interest from the date of order onwards.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of April, 2016.

                                                                                           (Sd/-)

                                                                P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                  (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)           :    (Sd/-)       

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Sasi Philip

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 series :  SMS sent to opposite parties

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                                             (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Adv. Sasi Philip, Varikanikuzhiyil, Velliyara.P.O., Ayroor North,

                    Ranny Taluk – 689 612.                                                                                    

               (2) Managing Director, Dish TV India Ltd., FC – 19, Sector 16 A,

         Film City, Noida U.P., Pin – 201 301.

    (3)  Chief Executive Officer, Dish TV India Ltd., FC – 19,

         Sector 16 A, Film City, Noida U.P., Pin – 201 301.

               (4) Dish Care Center, SPACENET (DCC), PKR Centre,

                    Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand, Pathanamthitta. 

               (5) The Stock File.