Haryana

Panchkula

CC/359/2019

SUMAN LATA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDEPENDENT TV LTD.( FORMAERLY KNOWN AS RELIANCE BIG TV LTD). - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

09 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                                                              

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	359 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2019
Date of Decision	:	09.08.2021

 

Suman Lata, daughter of Late Sh. Ram Swarup Premi, resident of House No.19,Sector-19, Panchkula-134113.

                                                                                    ….Complainant

                                    Versus                                                                  

1.      Independent TV Limited(formerly known as Reliance Big TV Ltd)

Head office:- H Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City, Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400710.

2.      Nodal Officer, Singla Power Solutions, Near Civil Hospital, Opposite Chawla Saw Mills, Sonipat, Haryana-131001.

                                                                                  ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Complainant in person.

OPs No.1 & 2 already ex-parte vide order dated 14.10.2019.

                          

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant pre-booked Independent TV Direct to Home(DTH) connection from the OP on 07.04.2018 through her elder brother Sh.Malkhan Singh Azad. The pre-booking amount of Rs.499/-was paid by complainant’s brother from his own bank account via online payment mode and the OP confirmed the pre-booking through e-mail on the same day and as per the contents of the e-mail, the OP promised, to install the DTH connection within 30 to 45 days. She also stated that the connection was belatedly installed on 18.10.2018 and the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.1,750/(including installation charges of Rs.250/-) as per pre-booking conditions and connection was activated the same day. Although the connection came with offer of free access to an extensive range of HD channels for one year and upto 500 free-to-air channels for five years, yet the opposite party withdrew all HD channels from the pack in the month of February, 2019. Further, the Set Top Box installed by the opposite party stopped working on 7 May, 2019. The complaint was made to local-in-charge and the visiting person informed to her that Set Top Box had gone faulty and needed replacement and assured that the set top box would be replaced with in a day or two. However, the person concerned stopped responding after 9 May, 2019. On 11 May, 2019 a formal complaint was registered with customer care services of OP with the request number 2695335. In response to complainant’s complaint, the OP issued a work-order number 1695134 for replacement of Set Top Box and informed that tentative resolution time was 24 hours. Thereafter, complainant continued to pursue the matter regularly by making calls and sending e-mails to customer care services and Nodal Officer of OP but they kept on making false promises that issue would be resolved within next 24 hours. Despite repeated requests made by complainant, the OP failed to redress his grievances. Finding no resolution from the OP, a new Set Top Box and cable connection had to be purchased on 21 May 2019 from other service provider. Thus, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notices were issued to the OPs through registered post (vide registered post No.CH38045799IN and CH380458087IN) on 02.09.2019 to OPs, which were not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OPs; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Ops, they were proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 14.10.2019.

3.               The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.               We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

5.               The complainant has alleged the following grievances in the present complaint:-

a.      That the opposite party installed the Independent TV Direct to Home(DTH) connection on 18.10.2018, which was booked by her on 07.04.2018, with a delay of 172 days approximately.

b.      That the opposite party failed to rectify the defects in the set top box, despite several e-mails/reminder sent by the complainant.

c.      The last grievance is with regard to the failure of opposite party about not providing connection with offer of free access to an extensive range of HD channels for one year and up to 500 free-to-air channels for five years.

6.               The OPs did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OPs despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in their defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.               On the other hand, the complainant has proved her case by placing on record her affidavit as Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-9. Evidently, the complainant got booked the alleged independent TV Direct to Home(DTH) connection with OPs on 07.04.2018, who, in response to booking, promised to install the connection between 30 to 45 days, vide E-mail(Annexure C-2), which is reproduced for the sake of convenience and clarity as under:

          “Dear Customer,

Congratulations for booking your RBIG TV Connection. Installation will be done between 30 to 45 days. Your Booking ID is 14543023 and No of connections 1.

          regards

          Reliance Digital TV”

8.               From above it is evident that connection was promised to be installed within 30-45 days, but it was installed on 18.10.2018, with a delay of 172 days(approx.). Thus, the deficiency in this regard is proved on the part of OPs. Now, coming to the second grievance, we find that the complainant made numerous telephonic calls on the customer care services and to the Nodal Officer of OP as is evident from Annexure C-4 and Annexure C-5. Further, it is found that the complainant sent various E-mails Annexure C-8(colly) to the OPs requesting them to replace the set top box. However, no remedial action was taken by the OPs. Even, notice dated 19.05.2019 and final notice Annexure C-8 (colly) failed to yield any positive result.

9.               Now, coming to third grievance, it is found that the basis of the complaint is Annexure C-3, to which there is no rebuttal on the part of OPs.

10.             It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant finding no resolution relating to defective set top box, she got installed another connection from another service provider i.e. D.S.Multimedia Private Limited, as is evident from bill (Annexure C-9).

11.             In view of the fact that the OPs neither responded to the notice nor they have opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OPs had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OPs are liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

 12.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs No.1 & 2:-

                           (i)     To refund a sum of Rs.2,249/-to the complainant     alongwith interest @9%per annum w.e.f.the date                                  of filing of this complaint till its realization.

                           (ii)     To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the        complainant on account of mental agony and                                      harassment and cost of litigation.

13.             The OPs No.1 to 2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OPs No.1 & 2 failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.  

 

Announced on: 09.08.2021

 

           Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini      Satpal

                    Member                    Member                            President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini  ,

                                                 Member