Order No.  12  dt.  25/07/2018

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a subscriber of service provided by o.ps. and o.ps. transmit signals for TV programme through channels to the set top box (STB hereafter). The complainant paid the monthly subscription regularly. From 1^st week of June,2017, the complainant failed to get the signals of subscribed la carte channels as well as of some BST channels. Complainant communicated the said fact to o.p. no.2 and the complainant was asked to buy a HD picture supporting STB directly from o.p. no.2, because according to o.p. no.2 the STB used at complainant’s end is old and needed to be discarded. On 23.06.2017 o.p. no.2 to send their technicians to the residence of the complainant to collect the STB for necessary repair / replacement on the ground of STB has been damaged. Accordingly, the technicians removed the said STB and provided STB which was not functioning properly for which the complainant suffered. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the original STB to the complainant as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.           

             The o.ps. contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that there is no relationship between the complainant and o.ps. and the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec 2 of C.P. Act and the complainant could not produce any document to show that he paid any amount for the STB. If the STB is provided to the complainant without any consideration the complainant cannot claim to be a consumer since no amount was paid by him. It was also emphasized by o.ps. that o.p. no.2 never  approached the complainant for supplying HD picture supporting STB directly from o.p. no.2. It was also stated that due to the fault in TV itself the picture could not appear in the said TV.  There was no defect in the said STB. Therefore, the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of the respective parties following points are to be decided :-

1. Whether the complainant had obtained the cable connection from o.p. no.1?
2. Whether the STB provided earlier to the complainant became defunct?
3. Whether the TV was functioning properly?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a subscriber of service provided by o.ps. and o.ps. transmit signals for TV programme through channels to the set top box (STB hereafter). The complainant paid the monthly subscription regularly. From 1^st week of June,2017 the complainant failed to get the signals of subscribed la carte channels as well as of some BST channels. Complainant communicated the said fact to o.p. no.2 and the complainant was asked to buy a HD picture supporting STB directly from o.p. no.2, because according to o.p. no.2 the STB used at complainant’s end is old and needed to be discarded. On 23.06.2017 o.p. no.2 to send their technicians to the residence of the complainant to collect the STB for necessary repair / replacement on the ground of STB has been damaged. Accordingly, the technicians removed the said STB and provided STB which was not functioning properly for which the complainant suffered. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for providing the original STB to the complainant as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.

            Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that there is no relationship between the complainant and o.ps. and the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec 2 of C.P. Act and the complainant could not produce any document to show that he paid any amount for the STB. If the STB is provided to the complainant without any consideration the complainant cannot claim to be a consumer since no amount was paid by him. It was also emphasized by o.ps. that o.p. no.2 never  approached the complainant for supplying HD picture supporting STB directly from o.p. no.2. It was also stated that due to the fault in TV itself the picture could not appear in the said TV.  There was no defect in the said STB. Therefore, the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant enjoyed the cable connection from o.ps. and during the enjoyment of the TV programme the complainant found that the STB provided to the complainant was not functioning properly and for which he lodged complaint and he was provided with the STB which was not functioning properly for which the complainant suffered. It appears from the materials on record the complainant failed to produce any document that the TV in question was in proper condition and the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the TV was providing normal function. It appears from the evidence of the complainant as well as from the materials on record that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant STB was replaced and another STB was provided which was also not functioning and was not providing picture in the said TV. The o.ps. raised objection that the TV in question had some technical defects for which cable operator i.e. o.p. no.2 cannot be held liable for the non functioning of the TV. Whenever, such points were raised by o.ps. regarding the normal functioning of the said TV the complainant ought to have produced and expert’s opinion to the effect that the TV was functioning in normal way, but due to the cable connection or the STB provided by o.ps. he was not in a position to enjoy the TV programme. Since the complainant has failed to prove that the TV in question was functioning in normal way particularly when o.ps. challenged the normal function of the TV, therefore, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case no.259 of 2017 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.