BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.

FA.No.973/2010 against CC.No.593/2009 District Forum-I, Hyderabad.

Between

TATA SKY LIMITED

A company incorporated under

the Indian Companies Act, 1956

and having its registered office at

3^rd floor, Bombay Dyeing

A.O.Building

Pandurang Budhkar Marg

Worli, Mumbai-400 025.

(Through Mr.Cyrus K.Elavia)                                          Appellant/

Opp.party.

And

1. Dr.MCR HRD IPA

    Represented by Shri P.Raja Ram

    Administrative Officer

    Dr.MCR HRD IPA

    Road No.25, Jubilee Hills,

    Hyderabad-500 169                                                 Respondent/

                                                                                Complainant

2. PROBES CONSULTING

    Rep. by G.Sai Kumar

    No.7-1-32/5/3, 1^st floor

    Leelanagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-16.                               Respondent/                                                                                       O.P.2

Counsel for the Appellant               :  M/s KNM Partners

Counsel for the Respondents                 : G.P.-R1

QUORUM:  SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE Incharge President

AND

SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER. 

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN

Order (Per SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE INCHARGE PRESIDENT)

***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.593/2009 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant i.e. Dr.MCR Human Resources Development Institute, a Government institute with Chief Minister as the Chairperson of the Board of Governors and Director General as its C.E.O.,  The institute had contacted M/s Probes Consulting for provision of Tata sky connections to the Godavari Guest House where most of the VIP Guests of the institute stay and the above company on behalf of M/s Tata sky requested a formal order and a formal order was issued by the institute.  The complainant submitted that as per the website of Tata sky, the company provides 3 add on connections to one main connection and as per its order, 16 rooms got to be provided with this facility at Godavari Guest House but the company’s agent, M/s Probes consulting instead provided 16 main connections and taken an excess amount of Rs.27,000/- instead of providing  4 main connections and 12 add on connections.  The institute had corresponded with Tata sky and as the company expressed its inability to follow its own scheme and instead stated that Godavari Guest House is a commercial activity and not entitled for the package offered by them.  The complainant submitted that neither the agent of the company nor the website states that multiple room connectivity does not provide this package of 1+3 and that the Government Guest house would be treated as commercial entity.  Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to extend the package of 1+3 with 4 main connections and 12 add-on connections in place of 16 existing connections provided by them and refund Rs.27,600/- being the excess amount collected by them  with interest and also pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- besides costs.

        Opposite party No.1 filed counter resisting the complaint. It submitted that they are engaged in the business of providing satellite Television services direct to the home of the customers and the service is provided based on the package selected by the customer.  It admitted that it entered into a subscription contract with the complainant and the complainant executed 16 separate agreements while obtaining the service to their guest house and accordingly 16 connections were given.  It submitted that the complainant is not entitled for add-on connections under the scheme and the work order discloses the same.  It further submitted that add-on connections would be provided only to the residential premises i.e. to houses and the facility or offer is not available to hotels, guest houses etc and submitted that they have not collected any excess amount.  The complainant had not subscribed for 4 primary connections nor was such an offer available to it and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        Opposite party No.2 remained  exparte before the District Forum.

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to  A8 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to extend the package of 1+3 with 4 main connections and 12 add-on connections in place of 16 independent connections, to refund Rs.27,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of receipt of the same  from the complainant till the date of payment together with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

        Aggrieved by the said order, opposite party No.1 preferred this appeal.

        The counsel for appellant/opposite party No.1 got marked Exs.B1 to B3 as additional evidence in this appeal. The counsel for respondent/complainant No.1 filed written arguments.

        The facts not in dispute are that the complainant is an institute run by the Government to train Government servants and also provides them accommodation in their Guest house which is within their premises.  It is not in dispute that the complainant wanted to take TATA SKY connection for 16 suits in the Guest house and it is the contention of the complainant that opposite party No.1 has to provide 3 add-on connections to one main connection but the opposite party instead of doing this provided 16 main connections and the complainant had to pay an excess amount of Rs.27,600/-.  The payment of the amount is not in dispute.  When the complainant approached the opposite parties they were informed that these add-on connections are only given for residential purposes whereas the complainant is a commercial institute.  It is the complainant’s case that the institute is a 100% government own, non-profitable training institute and hence cannot be treated as a commercial entity. 

        The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on the decision of the Apex court reported in AIR 1996 SC 1541 between MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY  v. MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES AND OTHERS     in which the Apex court held as follows:

        ‘that a guest huse maintained by a company only for its employees and not for

            Profit making cannot qualify to be categorized as residential.  Further, the Hon’ble

            Supreme Court extended its observation in defining: “Residential and non Residential”

            as “where the premise which is used by any person privately for its own residence for a

            sufficiently continued period and not a premise where a person can com and spend a

            day or a night and then go back”.

        We observe from the record that the opposite party has never filed any documentary evidence to establish that the said scheme of providing one primary connection with 3 add-ons is available only for residential purposes.  Even otherwise, the guest houses are used for residential purposes of  government  servants  during  the  period  of     training.  The complainant made several representations on 15-6-2009,  18-6-2009 and 23-6-2009 (Exs.A1 to A4).  It is pertinent that OP1 has replied stating that they are not able to identify the TATA SKY account /subscriber numbers (Ex.A2).  In fact the complainant has given the entire numbers and Ex.A1 itself evidences the installation along with the detailed I.Ds.  Ex.A4 is the letter dated 15-6-2009 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party giving the entire details of I.Ds. and requesting the opposite party to take necessary action. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP submitted that this package is only for domestic connection and filed Exs.B1 to B3 as additional evidence.  Exs.B1 and B2 are the subscription contract forms filled in by the complainant in which it is stated that the account type is commercial.  We observe from the record that Exs.B1 and B2 have a lot of spaces left blank and  which have not been filled. Ex.B3 reads as follows:

            Dear Sir,

            Please follow the trailing mail, the summary of the mail is as follows: Dr.V.P.Jauhgari (I.A.S.) is the Director General for the Govt. training Institute called Dr.Marri Cheena Reddy Human Resources Department (MCR HRD) located at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad.  The high profile officer have gone through the Tatasky website and called us for booking 16 connections, after preliminary negotiations he has placed an order for 16 connections in written form. We took MDU permission from tatasky officials and undertook the work.  The customer have paid for all the boxes.  He has also paid the annual subscription for all the 16 connections which amounts to above Rs.60,000/- (details are furnished in the trailing mail).

            All the boxes were activated after completing the necessary work under the requested scheme.  Meanwhile the officer have gone through our website and gathered some more information.  He called us and demanded for multi room benefit that is, one primary connection and 3 secondary connections.  All the 16 connections are to be adjusted within this scheme.  That means the customer will end up in having 4 primary connections and the rest as the secondary connections.  It works out to Rs.37,000/- (appr.) towards the annual subscription.  The rest of the amount is to be adjusted in the form of subscription for next year.

            We have given explanation that these connections fall under commercial category and the multi room benefit cannot be applied for commercials.   The customer demanded to substantiate the argument if it is written in the website.  Our website does not mention about this clause.