CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of November, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER Date of filing : 16/09/2014
CC /139/2014
P.C.Gopinathan,
S/o.Chellamani, Pallathu Veedu,
Thenur Post, Palakkad-678 612 : Complainant
(Party in person)
Vs
1. M.K.Hakkim, Proprietor,
M.K.Communication,
Behind Ayurveda Hospital,
Deccan Complex, Mettupalayam Street, : Opposite parties
Palakkad.
2. Managing Director,
M/s.Reliance Communications Ltd,
2nd Floor, A Block,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
Thane, Balapu Road,
Koparkhairne, Navi Mumbai – 400 709
(By Adv.Ratheesh & Viju.K.Raphel)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant in this case is a subscriber of Reliance Communications DTH bearing consumer No.200949135878 since 2011. He obtained connection by paying an amount of Rs.1,635/- with 1 year free subscription. Subsequently he renewed the connection by recharging the same for an amount of Rs.1,635/- for 1 year subscription and watched programs from 12/04/2012 till 11/04/2013. Then he called the customercare and confirmed the next years payment and recharged his connection for an amount of Rs.1,635/-. As per the terms he can watch the programs for a period of 1 year. But during December 2013 he got an sms on his TV screen that his validity has expired. When he contacted the customercare and enquired about the same he was informed that he had paid 1 year payment and could watch programs till 11/5/2014. On February 2014, i.e. on 8th and 9th he received another sms stating that his account has no balance and had to be recharged immediately. When he contacted the customercare and informed them that he had already paid 1 year subscription charges and so that the telecast should not be stopped. But on 12/2/2014 at about 12 p.m his telecast was stopped. Though he sent a complaint to the company no reply was received from them. On 14/2/2014 he contacted the customercare and asked about 1 year advance charge rate and recharged for Rs.1,751/-. Meanwhile he received an sms to pay Rs.40/- as sports channel fees to watch T-20 world cup cricket. He paid the aforesaid amount on 15/05/2014. After T -20 world cup he repeatedly tried to contact the customercare so as to stop the sports channel. But he could not. Again he received an sms to pay Rs.25/- to watch sports channel for the world cup football. He paid the amount on 12/06/2014. After the world cup football he repeatedly contacted the customercare but the call did not get connected. From 15/07/2014 onwards the subscription of Malayalam channels including Asianet, Asianet News, Asianet Plus, Surya TV, Kiran TV, Mazhavil Manorama, Mathrubumi and other 20 Tamil Channels and sports channels were stopped. When he contacted the customercare they replied that he had not asked to stop the sports channel and had used the sports channel for the additional time of Rs.30/- and the cancelled channels will be provided only if that amount is paid. But the opposite party had not telecasted the cancelled channels. The complainant states that cancelling channels other than sports channel for default in making payment to continue sports channel is a wrongful act on the part of the opposite party and is also against the service rules of the company. Hence he had approached before this Forum seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,751/- for stopping the telecast and also to grant compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the mental agony suffered.
The notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Inspite of accepting the notice the opposite party failed to appear before the forum hence they were called absent and set exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit. Later the opposite parties filed application to set aside the exparte order and the application was allowed on cost of Rs.300/- to the complainant. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contenting the following.
The complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in law and devoid of any merits. The allegation of the complainant that he had recharged for one year from 14/2/2014 and he had paid an amount of Rs.40/- as sports channel fee to watch T-20 world cup cricket on 15/05/2014 and that after T-20 world cup he repeatedly tried to call the customercare to stop the sports channel and he could not contact the customercare and on 12/06/2014 he paid an amount of Rs.25/- for sports channel to watch world cup football and that from 15/07/2014 onwards the subscription of channels including Asianet, Asianet News, Asianet Plus, Surya TV, Kiran TV, Mazhavil Manorama, Mathrubumi and other 20 Tamil Channels and sports channels were stopped and that when he contacted the customercare they replied that complainant had not asked to stop the additional channel package or sports channel he had taken to watch the T-20 matches and the complainant had used the sports channel for additional time o f Rs.30/- and the cancelled channels will be provided only if that amount is paid etc. are utter falsehood and denied by the opposite parties. The complainant had opted for 1 year value base pack on 14/02/2014 and the value pack he activated will run up to 08/02/2015. It is admitted by the complainant that there is no cancellation of the base pack which he opted for 1 year. His complaint is that along with the basepack he opted there was a free offer of add on channels of regional pack which includes Malayalam + Tamil channels for 1 year and that add on channels of Malayalam + Tamil channels stopped streaming from 15/07/2014 onwards. As per the terms and conditions the complainant has agreed to while taking the connection with the 2nd opposite party that he is obliged to maintain a positive balance in his account to get all add on channels along with the base pack. It is agreed by the complainant as per the terms of the agreement in between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party that once the account balance in the account of the complainant goes to the negative the entire add on packages will be stopped till the account balance become positive by additional payment by the complainant. In this case as the complainant had admitted he had opted for a T -20 world cup cricket package on 15/05/2014 which had a 3 month locking period. The said add-on will run for 3 months from the date of subscription for the payment he had made. If the complainant wants to discontinue the subscription he will have to inform the same to the 2nd opposite party. Even according to the complainant he has not suspended the T– 20 world cup cricket package till 19/08/2014. The 3 month pack he had taken for which he had made payment will end on 14/07/2014. So the complainant had used the T– 20 world cup cricket packages even after the offer period of 3 months and thus his credit balance in the account of the 2nd opposite party has became negative. As per the terms of the agreement between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party, all the add-on channels streamed to the complainant was stopped by the system since his credit balance in the account maintained by the 2nd opposite party in his name became negative. The add-on channels in the name and style regional pack which includes Malayalam and Tamil channels were also stopped since the same is add-on pack in the scheme the complainant had joined 1 year value base pack. When the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party, the opposite party had advised him to make the account to a positive balance so that the 2nd opposite party can cancelled the T-20 world cup package and can restored the regional pack with Malayalam channels. The regional pack with Malayalam channels was a free-add-on package which was offered to the complainant when he had opted for 1 year value base pack on 14/02/2014. The complainant has no case that the channels which was offered by way of 1 year value base pack was stopped screening as on 15/07/2014. Hence there is no irregularities or impropriety from the part of the 2nd opposite party towards the complainant. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the part of the 2nd opposite party towards the complainant. Moreover since the complaint of the complainant is in relation to non streaming of regional pack which includes Malayalam and tamil channels which was free add on channels offered to the complainant along with 1 year value base pack for which the complainant has not paid any consideration, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. No consumer dispute exists between the complainant and the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
The complainant filed additional chief affidavit 2nd opposite party filed application to cross examine the complainant along with chief examination affidavit. Since the complainant has no objection the application was allowed, and complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1– A3 was marked from the part of the complainant and Ext.B1–B4 was marked from the part of the opposite party. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite
Parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
ISSUES 1 & 2
The allegation of the complainant is that from 15/07/2014 onwards the subscription of Malayalam channels including Asianet, Asianet News, Asianet Plus, Surya TV, Kiran TV, Mazhavil Manorama, Mathrubumi and other 20 Tamil channels and Sports channels were suspended. When the complainant was examined as PW1 he clearly stated that Customercare ൽ വിളിച്ചു പറഞ്ഞാൽ മാത്രമേ ചാനൽ cut ചെയ്യുകയുള്ളൂ എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. Admitted case of the complainant is that he has taken add on package for T-20 world cup after paying the add-on charges from Ext.B3 and B4 document it can be seen that the complainant has not taken add on channels for the first time. It can be seen that the complainant was regularly taking the add-on channels and was complying with all its formalities. The complainant has also admitted in his cross examination page No.3 that he is to cancel the add on channel by calling the customercare of the 2nd opposite party as per the terms of streaming of add on channels Customercare ൽ വിളിച്ചു പറഞ്ഞാൽ മാത്രമേ ചാനൽ cut ചെയ്യുകയുള്ളൂ എന്ന് മനസ്സിലാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്.
The complainant has no case that he has ordered to cancel the add on channels he has taken by calling the customercare of the 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has refused the same. On the contrary the complainant alleges that he had called the customercare and he could not connect to the customercare number of the opposite party. The document produced and marked from the side of the complainant will not show that he called the customercare number nor the matter was transpired in between the conversation. The alleged call details produced by the complainant (Ext.A3) has no authentication from the side of the authority who had issued the same. The said details does not bare sign or signature from the authority who had issued it.
The call list will not reveal that the complainant has ordered for cancelling the add on channels as claimed by the complainant. But it will go to show that he had attempted to contact the customercare centre so as to cancel his sports channel. Since the complainant has used the add on channel for a period over and above for which he has paid the amount, as admitted by the complainant, the balance in the account of the complainant maintained to the 2nd opposite party has become negative. The 2nd opposite party had produced the terms of the agreement which was marked as Ext.B2, in clause 13(1) it is mentioned that when the balance in the account of the complainant maintained with 2nd opposite party becomes negative, the 2nd opposite party is entitled to discontinue the streaming of channels and de activate the service. Moreover the Malayalam + Tamil channels which was free add on to the value base pack alone was stopped. The fact that the complainant has taken value base pack for the paid amount with the 2nd opposite party is born out from Ext.B3 and B4. The opposite party ought to have intimated the complainant, before stopping the free add-on channels and should have provided an opportunity to the complainant to pay the balance so as to maintain the balance in the main account. Instead they had suddenly stopped the free add-on channels. There is nothing on the part of the opposite party to show that they had intimated the complainant before stopping the free add – on channels. If the complainant had given an opportunity to pay the balance before stopping the free add- on channels, he certainly should have paid it. Without doing so, the opposite party had committed deficiency of service on their part. According to the opposite party the said Malayalam + Tamil channels were provided to the complainant as free add on to the value base pack he had purchased, and hence the complainant will not fall within the definition of the consumer as defined in Section 2(d) (II) of the consumer protection Act 1986, since this channel was not for any consideration. But this argument cannot be taken in to consideration since he had paid the one year subscription well in advance for the value base pack.
In view of the above observation the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties to pay an amount Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest for the compensation amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of November, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- Notice issued by the complainant to OP dated 10/03/2014
Ext.A2- Postal Receipt dtd 15/03/2014 (Photocopy)
Ext.A3-Extract of call details of mobile number 9446532938 from 30/05/2014 to 15/06/2014
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of the power of attorney dtd.14/06/2014
Ext.B2- The specimen copy of the Customer Acquisition Form
Ext.B3- The computer print out of the pack purchase details of the account of the complainant maintained in the account with the 2nd OP
Ext.B4- The computer print out of the Payment details of the account of the complainant maintained in the account with the 2nd OP
Witness marked on the side of complainant
PW1-P.C.Gopinathan
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- as cost.
