CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th March, 2016
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT
: SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER
: SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN Date of filing : 17/12/2014
CC /197/2014
Neelakandhan.K.N,
Sreesoudham, Mythri Nagar,
Kalleppully (Post),
Palakkad – 678 005
Kerala State : Complainant
(By Party in Person)
Vs
1. Manager,
Videocon d2h Limited,
39/6481 A&C South Point building, : Opposite parties
Ravipuram, Cochin – 682 015
2. Sibil Mathai, Nodal Officer,
B.B.C.L., 39/6481, 1st Floor,
South Point Building,
Ravipuram, Ernakulam – 682 015
3. The Manager, Next Palakkad,
Ghanis, Near East Fort Maidan,
Stadium Bye-Pass Road,
Palakkad.
(By Adv.Rajesh M Menon)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The complainant purchased a Videocon T.V on 24/12/2010 from “Next Showroom” in Palakkad. When the complainant demanded for the wall mounting of T.V. they insisted that he had to take a Dish connection. So the complainant was forced to take Videocon dish connection along with T.V. for which he paid Rs.500/- as extra. The complainant was not using dish antenna service on those days and he was having Asia-net Cable Service. Later on he checked with Videocon and they informed him that he can recharge for dish antenna service. Accordingly he recharged for 6 months. Some month later his transmission showed as signal breakdown and when he restarted the TV, again the proper connection will be restored. When he made complaint against this, the opposite party informed that it is due to monsoon problem. When the problem continues, the opposite parties informed that it is due to some malfunctioning of some part in his inbuilt set up box. The opposite parties also informed that he had to pay the cost for repairing, then the complainant refused. After few days complainant was getting proper broadcasting without any interception and that to without changing any part. Hence the complainant submits that the mistake was not inside his TV but must be some problem in the transmission. The complainant recharged the Dish antenna service again for 6 months. The problem started again in TV transmission and he used to get message “Program up to dating” in progress. If he restart his TV, or wait for 2 minutes again it starts functioning. After a few days once again he complained to Videocon. They try to repair from their office and finally they informed that he had to replace some part of his in built set up box. The complainant told them that if he had to pay charges for it, then he prefer to change to some other service connection as he had lost faith in their service. The complainant only had intention to complete the period and then to change the service to some other party. After a week the complete service for the TV was stopped without any notice. Again the complainant informed the opposite parties and they restored the service. Surprisingly, he was getting uninterrupted TV transmission without changing any parts. Hence the complainant alleges that the problem was at the service station of the opposite parties. He sent e-mail to their customer care office stating this matter and within few hours, once again the TV transmission had got down which he assume that it was created by the opposite parties deliberately. On 15/12/2014 the complainant was unable to get any service from the opposite parties. A complaint was registered with the opposite parties and they informed that their service engineer will solve the problem soon. On 16th afternoon when he enquired with opposite parties they told him that no complaint has registered so that they cannot do anything. The complainant submits that as on 15th December 2014 there was a balance of Rs.707.90 at his recharge and the validity is up to 13/04/2015. Hence the complainant had approached before this forum seeking compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony along with the refund of the balance amount of Rs.708/- .
Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying all the allegations in the complaint.
The complainant had requested the opposite parties to activate DTH services and based on the request and consent received from the complainant and at the time as instructed by the complainant, the opposite parties service engineer had visited complainant’s premises to activate the inbuilt set top box in the complainant’s LCD by collecting a charge of Rs.500/-. For the first time, on 4/7/2014, the opposite parties received a complaint from the complainant therefore it is absolutely clear that the complainant has never faced a problem during the warranty period and for a considerable time thereafter and was completely enjoying D2h service of the opposite parties. Based on the complainant’s complaint on 04/07/2014, the service engineer of the opposite parties visited the complainant’s house and duly attended his complaint. After attending the complaint the service engineer found that the inbuilt panel board in the LCD is having a minor problem and the same will have to be replaced. As the warranty period for the product has expired, the service engineer intimated the complainant that the IDTV Board is chargeable. However, the complainant refused to pay charges for the spare and instead insisted that the same should be done on free of cost basis and refused to sign the work order. Similar complaints were lodged by the complainant with the opposite parties which were duly attended by the service engineers of the opposite parties on 28/07/2014, 24/11/2014, 31/11/2014 and 19/12/2014 and every time they suggested that the IDTV Board needs replacement and the same is chargeable. The complainant on each occasion refused to pay the charges for the spare and also refused to sign the work orders. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant is having LCD in which provision for DTH service is inbuilt and it is the inbuilt panel board which is causing problem and not
the DTH services that are offered by the opposite parties. Rest of the allegations in the complaint are all vehemently denied by the opposite parties. The issue was duly explained to the complainant and it was further explained to the complainant that as complainant’s LCD is out of warranty, same can only be replaced upon payment of cost. However the complainant had willfully neglected the issue and decided not to replace the IDTV panel. Therefore there is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties and as such the complaint has to be dismissed.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with application seeking permission to cross examine the opposite parties service engineer. Expert witness was examined as DW1. Complainant filed another application to appoint an expert commission to examine the TV. Application was allowed and an expert was appointed to examine the TV and filed detailed report. Opposite parties also filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 –A3 was marked from the part of the complainant . Ext.B1 was marked for the part of Opposite party. Expert Commissioner’s report was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed and the matter was heard.
The following issues are to be considered.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
We had perused the expert commissioner’s report as well as the evidence tendered by the service engineer. According to the expert commissioner’s report it has been clearly stated that the television was able to function normally when connected to another external DTH Set Top box by bypassing the inbuilt DTH receiver of the LCD. He has stated that from his inspection the inbuilt DTH receiver of the complainant’s television was non functional. According to the evidence tendered by DW1 also the inbuilt Set Top Box had to be repaired since the warranty period was over the complainant was asked to pay charges for which he refused. Hence they could not rectify the problem. The complainant was submitting that even after that inspection he got uninterrupted reception for 5 months. During cross examination the witness answered Set off box നുള്ളിൽ ഒരു component കേടായിരുന്നു. അത് TV on ചെയ്ത് heat ആവുമ്പോൾ താനേ connection പോവും. ഇടയ്ക്ക് Service Engineer പോവുമ്പോൾ ആ part തുടച്ച് വൃത്തിയാക്കി തത്ക്കാലം work ചെയ്യിപ്പിച്ചു കൊടുത്തിരുന്നതാണ്. ആ problem എപ്പോഴും ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു. ആ component മാറ്റിയാൽ മാത്രമേ T.Vടെ problem permanent ആയി solve ചെയ്യാൻ സാധിക്കുള്ളൂ. അതൊരു Expert പരിശോധിച്ചാൽ മനസിലാവുന്നതാണ്.
From the above observations it can be inferred that the complaint was with regard to the inbuilt DTH receiver of the complainant’s television and not with the service rendered from the part of the opposite parties. In the light of the above observation complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P. Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 –Photostat of e-mail communications between Videocon and complainant (14 pages)
Ext.A2– Balance amount due with Videocon (Photostat)
Ext.A3 – Copy of Bill from NEXT Show Room dtd.24/12/2010
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Ext.C1- Commission report (Dr.Binoy B Nair)
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 - Copy of customer agreement form dtd.4/01/2011
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1-Shafeer Ahamad
Cost Allowed
No cost.
