This revision petition has been filed by Tata Sky Limited, opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Forum’ for short), challenging the concurrent findings of the two consumer fora below.

Respondent No.1, the complainant, persuaded by the promise of excellent services advertised by the petitioner through the press and the electronic media made a request for the supply of two Tata Sky connections through the Tata Sky Helpline No. 19014256633 on the 28^th of December, 2006.  The very next day, two set top boxes were delivered at her residence by M/s Chaudhary Agencies, opposite party no.2/respondent no.2, who informed the complainant that Tata Sky engineers will come and energise the system on 31^st of December, 2006.  However, no one came on that date nor was there any communication with regard to their visit on any other day.  On the 1^st of January, 2007, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Tata Sky Helpline, she was informed that the engineers would definitely turn up on the 2^nd of January, 2007 but even that did not happen.  When, she threatened to return the set top boxes, the engineers came in the evening of 4^th of January, 2007 but were able to activate only one set top box.  When the second set top box could not be activated her request to take it back was also not agreed and the flimsy explanation given was that her second television was not compatible with the second set top box.  To be noted that even the first set op box which had been energised failed to function properly for which another complaint had to be made for Tata Sky engineers to attend to it subsequently.

It was in this background that complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, who holding the petitioner Tata Sky Limited deficient in rendering service directed them to refund sum of Rs.3774/- being the cost of the set top box and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment as well as cost of litigation.  Aggrieved upon this order of the District Forum, the present petitioner, who was opposite party no.1 before the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, who has dismissed their appeal.

The main thrust of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Tata Sky Limited is that the petitioner does not sell digicomps, which is also called the set top box, and admittedly when the complainant has purchased the set top boxes from the opposite party no.2, M/s Chaudhary Agencies, both the fora below have gone wrong in holding that the complainant was a consumer qua the petitioner.  The complainant has not paid any consideration to them for the digicomp/set top boxes and, therefore, the fora below legally could not have directed the petitioner to refund the cost of the digicomp.  With regard to the service to be rendered by the petitioner, he submits that insofar as not installing the DTH service on the second television set of the complainant is concerned, it was technically not possible to do so since the television set was not compatible with the digicomp purchased by the complainant.  The fault, therefore, was of the complainant and the petitioner tried their level best to render the service as would be evident from the fact that their engineer made even a second visit.  Insofar as the hitch with regard to the first set top box is concerned, he contends that it was duly rectified and it could not be said that there was any deficiency in service. 

On a careful perusal of the records, it is found that the plea of the petitioner having nothing to do with the supply of the digicomp/set top box stands on a very flimsy ground.  It is to be noted that the complainant called the Tata Sky helpline number as advertised expressing her desire to avail DTH facilities on two of her televisions.  At no stage she had gone to the market or approached M/s Chaudhary Agencies for the supply of the set top boxes.  It was her request to the Tata Sky customer service which set the ball rolling and M/s Chaudhary Agencies, who may be their agent, delivered the set top boxes at her residence.  No doubt, the cost of the set top boxes was paid to M/s Chaudhary Agencies but the receipt clearly indicates that each box contains a viewing card, the ownership of which remains with the Tata Sky Limited.  There is no plea that M/s Chaudhary Agencies was not their agent or dealer.  That apart, some of the provisions in the agreement when read and analysed carefully prove beyond any doubt that the digicomp/set top boxes are being manufactured according to the exact specification of the Tata Sky and being supplied only on their instructions.  In para 10 of the terms and conditions, it has been stated as under :-

“10. DIGICARD^TM /DIGICOMP^TM   

10.1 The Digicard^TM and the Tata Sky Hardware will at all times remain Our property.

….

….

10.7 Each digicard^TM is compatible with only one Digicomp^TM, and cannot be used on any other Digicomp^TM. 

….

….

10.14 You must not allow any other person or entity to use the Digicard^TM and/or Hardware, including the Digicomp^TM in any manner and for any purpose whatsoever.”

It would also be of interest to note that in response to Q. No. 14 in their brochure on FAQs it has been stated that “Your Digicomp^TM is meant for one television set only, and can be used only with the TV set to which it is connected.  ….”  A combined reading of all the provisions incorporated by the petitioner clearly goes to show that the consumer has no choice but to go for a particular digicomp/set top box if he has to avail the DTH service of the petitioner.  In this backdrop, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not the supplier of the digicomp set has to be rejected.  It is also noticed that this plea of passing on the buck to the so-called supplier, i.e. M/s Chaudhary Agencies, being responsible has not been advanced in the written statement filed by the petitioner before the District Forum.  Clearly, it is an after-thought.

Insofar as deficiency in service is concerned, both the fora below have on appreciation of facts rejected their contention and have held that there indeed has been certain amount of harassment to the complainant and have held their conduct to be deficient in service.  The award has been correctly termed by the State Commission as very modest with which this Commission fully agrees. 

The revision petition, under the circumstances, being bereft of any merit is dismissed with no order as to cost.