Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/125

DEEPAK KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

DISH TV SHOP - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH CHADHA

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No.125 of 2019

                                                Date of institution: 20.11.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 05.02.2021

 

 

Deepak Kumar, aged about 31 years, son of Kamal Dev, resident of Village Rainsra Post Office Kahanpur Khuhi, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib,  District Rupnagar.

…….Complainant

Versus

 

1. Dish TV Shop No.5186, Ground Floor, Sukhram, Tehsil & District Rupnagar through its Prop.
2. Dish TV India Limited, Fl 19, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida (UP).

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                        Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:     Sh. Dinesh Chadha, Adv. counsel for complainant

O.P. No.1 ex-parte.

Sh. Varun Garg, Adv. counsel for O.P. No.2

               
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs for short) on the ground that in order to upgrade the Set top box, CC explored the website of the Dish TV and booked the up-gradation online as per the given instructions through mobile. He received a call from the Dish TV and was confirmed by the Ops and was asked whether the CC wants to upgrade the Set Top Box and the CC accordingly replied in affirmative. It is alleged that it was nowhere mentioned that they have no HD box and in place of HD Box they are installing MPEG-4. The CC was told that their technician will call the CC. Thereafter, a call was received by the CC from the technician, who visited the house of the CC at 5.00 PM but the CC was not at home. Then the technician made second call and told the CC that he has to change the box immediately otherwise the request made by the CC will be cancelled by the company.  Accordingly, the CC asked to fit the  Set Top box at home and take money from his house. It is alleged that CC went home and searched for the HD channels on the Set Top Box and found that there were no HD channels on the TV. Accordingly, the CC made another call to the technician and told him about his problem. In reply, he was told that the stock of the HD box has been exhausted with the company and there are lots of MPEG-4 boxes with the company and due to this he has fitted MPEG-4 box in the house of the CC. It is alleged that the CC told him that he has to install the HD box and he does not require to install the MPEG-4 box and there is already MPEG-2 box fitted in the house and the same is working properly but the CC did not find the reply of the technician satisfactory. The CC also contacted the toll free number of the company and requested them either to fit the HD box or to return the old box and amount of Rs.600/- but his phone was disconnected. He was told by the company that HD box cannot be fitted as firstly MPGE-4 is to be installed and thereafter HD box will be installed. The CC was asked to send the request again for the HD Box with the company and demanded Rs.800/- from the CC.  The CC made a complaint on National Consumer Help Line on 31.7.2019 but no action was taken by the Consumer Help line. He was advised by the helpline to talk with the company again. The CC was again asked to wait for two months period and was assured that they will be provided HD Box to the CC but till date no HD box has been provided. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the CC has sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- and damages of Rs.15,000/- along with interest. The complaint is signed and is also verified. Further the same is also supported by affidavit of the CC.

2.           In reply, the OP No.2 has raised some preliminary objections in which it is mentioned that the complaint has been filed with malafide intention and to earn undue profit. It is alleged that the complainant approached directly to the Hon’ble Commission without giving any opportunity to the answering OPs to resolve the issue. Further OP No.2 had termed the complaint of the CC is false and frivolous. Complainant did not disclose any valid cause of action against the OP and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. The OPs since the date of inception of the activation of the VC, has never received any issues pertaining to the reception of channels, and /or recharge regarding difficulties and the complainant had duly enjoyed the service of the OP and has never complained for service related issues.

3. It is further alleged that the OP Company was first to introduce DTH entertainment services in India in the year 2003 and is Asia’s largest Direct to Home Entertainment and is pioneer in the field of digital entertainment. The OP is the one of the first DTH company who coined and introduced the High Definition (HD) picture in the DTH industry. It is further alleged that the complainant contacted the customer care number of the OP on 26.7.2019 in order to enquire about upgradation of his existing STB. The customer care advisor provided information on upgradation including upgradation from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4. Upon receiving consent of complainant for upgradation from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4, the advisor informed complainant regarding the charges of Rs.599/- applicable for such conversion. The complainant consented regarding the conversion from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 and thereafter the technician visited his place and upgraded the STB from MPEG 2 to MPEG 4 on the same day.  The complainant despite having consented to the upgradation, afterwards, approached the OP on 31.7.2019 via National Consumer Helpline number stating that the OP has installed SD+MPEG 4 STB at his premises instead of HD STB. On the same day, the complainant wrote an email to the customer care of the OP regarding the same dispute of HD STB. The CC was categorically informed by the customer care of OP about the shortage of HD STB. However, on 5.8.2019 the OP after verifying the case details, informed the complainant on behalf of his NCH Grievance number 1486016 that the OP has not committed HD STB to the complainant under the upgradation offer of Rs.599/-. It was also put forth to the complainant that in case he was keen to install HD STB the same can be got done paying Rs.799/- under the HD upgrade scheme. The OP as a good gesture and to facilitate the desired upgradation offered to adjust Rs.599/- paid by the complainant under the earlier upgradation scheme of Rs.599/- into the present upgradation to HD STB but the complainant refused to accept this offer. It is further alleged that there has been no demand of Rs.800/- from the complainant rather a special offer was made to him to have the amount paid by him adjusted against the HD upgradation. Thus, alleging any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. prayer made for dismissal the complaint. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has chosen to remain ex-parte vide order dated 12.11.2020
4. The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A along copy of Email Ex.C1. On the other hand, the OP. No.2 has tendered affidavits of Sh. Amarjeet Singh, authorized representative of Dish TV India Limited as Ex.OP1 & Ex.OP2 along with original pen drive Ex.OP3. 
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the file, carefully and minutely.
6. It is important to mention here that the OPs were contacted by the CC on customer care number on 26.7.2019 in order to enquire about upgradation of his existence STB. Accordingly, the customer care advisor of the O.Ps provided requisite information of upgradation including upgradation from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4. He was also informed regarding the charges of Rs.599/- applicable for such conversion. CC gave his consent regarding the conversion from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4. Accordingly, the technician of the OPs upgraded the STB from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 on the same day. It is on the file that CC after even giving consent for upgradation later on approached the O.Ps. on 31.7.2019 through National Consumer Helpline and complained against the OPs that instead of installing SD+MPEG4-STB at his premises have installed HD STB. It is on the file that the CC was informed by the customer care of the O.Ps about the shortage of HD STB. It is in the version of the O.Ps. that on 05.08.2019 the O.Ps. after verifying informed the CC again that O.Ps. has not committed for HD STB to the CC under the upgrading offer of Rs.599/- and was told that in case he was keen to install HDSTB the same can be done on payment of Rs.799/- and  the OPs will adjust the amount of Rs.599/- paid by the CC as a goodwill gesture but the CC refused to accept the offer. It is also in the version of the O.Ps. that no demand of Rs.800/- was ever raised by the O.Ps. The version of the O.Ps was also supported by an affidavit of Sh. Amarjit Singh, the authorized representative of the O.Ps.
7. After perusing the entire record and the evidence submitted by the CC, we feel that the CC has not brought sufficient evidence to make out a case of consumer dispute against the O.Ps. We have also perused Ex.C1, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the company had responded to the grievance of the CC as per their terms and conditions. We have also heard the conversation between the parties. We do not find any cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence to penalize the OPs or to find any deficiency in service on their part.
8. In the light of discussion made above, the complaint is partly allowed. However, to satisfy the complainant and as a goodwill gesture, we order the OPs to refund Rs.599/- if they received from the CC within 45 days after the receipt of the copy of this order. To satisfy the complainant and goodwill gesture the complainant is entitled to pay Rs.1000/-. The parties shall bear their own cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
9.  

February 05, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

                                               

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

                                                                                                     MEMBER