Haryana

StateCommission

A/417/2015

TATA SKY LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.S.KAUSHIKA - Opp.Party(s)

SAURABH GAUTAM

31 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      417 of 2015

Date of Institution:      05.05.2015

Date of Decision :       31.07.2015

Tata Sky Limited, 3^rd Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (Bombay Dyeing) Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party

Versus

 

Mr. M.S. Kaushika s/o Late Shri Prema Nand Kaushika, Resident of Neelachal, Shambhu Dayal Mandir Marg, Sonepat-131001, Haryana.

 

                                      Respondent-Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                              

Present:               Shri Saurabh Gautam, Advocate for appellant.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Notice of the appeal was issued to the respondent-complainant by registered post acknowledgement due. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

2.      This appeal has been preferred against the order dated March 17^th, 2015, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘District Forum’), Sonepat.     

3.      M.S. Kaushika-Complainant (respondent herein) got Tata Sky television connection from Tata Sky Limited-Opposite Party-appellant. Some of the channels of his television were interrupted. He complained to the appellant to rectify the defect. The appellant raised demand of Rs.170/- as service charges, which according to the respondent was illegal.

4.      He filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

5.      Notice of the complaint was given to the appellant by registered post acknowledgment due. None appeared to contest the complaint and the appellant was proceeded ex parte.

6.      Vide impugned order, the District Forum, Sonepat allowed complaint directing the appellant as under:

“………we hereby directed the respondent not to charge Rs.170/- for sending service engineer, to refund Rs.1100/- to the complainant which were charged as cost of HD STB. The respondent is further directed to set their frequency and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment & humiliation and under the head of litigation charges.”

7.      Since the appellant was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum and as such it could not contest the complaint on merits.  It would be in the interest of justice to give an opportunity to the appellant to contest the complaint on merits.

8.      Accordingly, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside subject to the cost of Rs.2,000/- which shall be paid by the appellant to the respondent before the District Forum. The appellant is accorded opportunity to join the proceedings and parties shall be entitled to lead evidence etc.  The case is remitted to the District Forum, Sonepat with the direction to decide the complaint expeditiously preferably within a period of three months, which shall be from the date of first appearance of the parties. 

9.       The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Sonepat on 08.09.2015.

10.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.5550/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 31.07.2015

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL