BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

Dated this the 14^th of January 2011

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT

                        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

                        SRI. ARUN KUMAR K.        :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.267/2010

(Admitted on 08.10.2010)

Koosappa Gowda,

So. Sheshappa Gowda,

Aged about 50 years,

RA. 2 163, Kerendelu House,

Soorya, Idkidu Village,

Bantwal Taluk,

Dakshina Kannada.                           …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D)

          VERSUS

1. Managing Director,

Ms. DISH T.V. India Ltd.,

Regd. Office at B 10,

Lawrence Road, Industrial Area,

New Delhi 35.

2. Proprietor,

M/s.Souza Electronics,

Kashyap Complex,

Main Road, Sullia.                     ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Party No.1 and 2: Exparte).

                                      ***************

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

1.       This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant submits that, he has taken DTH (Direct to Home) dish TV service connection from the 2^nd Opposite Party of the 1^st Opposite Party.  It is stated that, at the time of purchase of DTH service, the Complainant has paid Rs.2,500/- to the 2^nd Opposite Party and thereafter the 2^nd Opposite Party installed the DTH to the Complainant’s house on 18.08.2008 by the Engineers of the 1^st Opposite Party.  It is stated that, for payment of Rs.2,500/- the 2^nd Opposite Party did not issue receipt.  However, they have installed the dish TV connection.  As per the initial offer, one year free subscription was given to the Complainant till 18.08.2009.  Thereafter the Complainant has re-charged many times and the last re-charge was on 19.07.2010 for 50 days till 06.09.2010.  When the matter stood thus, the Complainant’s DTH service was stopped/disconnected on 27.08.2010 i.e., 10 days before the due date.  The Complainant has enquired with the 2^nd Opposite Party but no action was taken.  Thereafter the Complainant has lodged E-mail complaint on 01.09.2010 to the 1^st Opposite Party customer care, even though they have not taken any steps but on 30.08.2010 the 1^st Opposite Party issued a registered notice stating that the Complainant committed theft of the signals and misusing and un-prescribed use of viewing card etc. etc.  It is stated that, the Complainant has never mis-used the DTH service connection given to his residence.  The Complainant has called upon the 1^st Opposite Party to restore the DTH service but the 1^st Opposite Party has disconnected the DTH service without any reason which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Parties to restore DTH service to the Complainant’s viewing card No.01506252827 and also claimed Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.  Hence we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 and 2.  The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 and 2.

3.       In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

3. What order?

4.         In support of the complaint, Sri.Koosappa Gowda (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C6.  Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed any version. 

          We have considered the materials that was placed by the Complainant before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:                   

                       Point No.(i): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.   

Reasons

5.  Point No. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the Complainant sworn to the fact that, he had obtained DTH Service Connection from the 2^nd Opposite Party situated at Sullia of Dakshina Kannada District and at the time of purchase of the DTH service, the Complainant has paid Rs.2,500/- but the 2^nd Opposite Party did not give the receipt for the same.  However, the DTH was installed at the Complainant’s house on 18.08.2008 by the Engineers of the 1^st Opposite Party.  As per the offer, one year free subscription was given to the Complainant till 18.08.2009.  Thereafter, the Complainant has re-charged many times and the last re-charge was on 19.07.2010 for 50 days i.e., till 06.09.2010.  The above DTH connection is for the exclusive use of the Complainant residence and viewing card number stated as 01506252827.  It is further stated that, the Opposite Parties stopped/disconnected the DTH connection service on 27.08.2010 i.e., 10 days before the due date and lodged a complaint to the Opposite Parties but the 1^st Opposite Party issued a false notice by stating that the Complainant is stealing and committed theft of the signals and mis-using and un-prescribed use of viewing card.  The Complainant stated that, he had not mis-used the above DTH service as stated by the Opposite Parties.  It is contended that, without any valid reason the Opposite Parties disconnected and stopped the DTH service, which amounts to deficiency. 

The above statement of the Complainant filed by way of affidavit is not controverted/contradicted by the Opposite Parties despite of receiving version notice issued by this FORA.  However, the Complainant in support of his allegation, produced the E-mail dated 01.09.2010, wherein, he has specifically stated that, the above said DTH connection is using for residence, without the completion of the validity the Opposite Parties disconnected the network and also mentioned the card number in the said E-mail and the same has been served to the Opposite Parties.  In response to the above said E-mail, the Opposite Parties issued a reply dated 01.09.2010 stating that, the request of the Complainant is under process.  Even after that, the Complainant was following up the matter with the request to re-connect the dish TV connection.  But on 30.08.2010 i.e., Ex C4 surprisingly the Opposite Parties issued a legal notice through counsel stating that the Complainant has mis-used and un-prescribed use of viewing card and thereby he has committed theft and piracy of Dish TV signals for further transmission/distribution etc. etc.  The Complainant issued a reply dated 19.09.2010 i.e., Ex C5 to the above said legal notice by denying the allegations put forwarded by the Opposite Parties and subsequently the Complainant came up with this complaint. 

However, we have observed that, the Opposite Parties though issued a legal notice in reply by engaging an advocate on behalf of them, but not bothered to appear before the FORA to establish their defences put forwarded in their legal notice.  It is not sufficient mere issuing a reply with bald allegations.  One has to prove before the FORA how the Complainant committed theft or mis-used the card or involved in piracy of Dish TV connection etc. etc.  Without there being any material/cogent evidence, it is very hard to believe that, the Complainant has committed theft or mi-used the card etc. etc.  In the absence of the same, we hold that whatever stated in the affidavit in support of his complaint along with documents i.e., Ex C1 to C6 proved beyond doubt that admittedly the Opposite Parties provided DTH service connection to his residence and also they had given one year free subscription and thereafter the Complainant re-charged the Dish TV connection through his viewing card No.01506252827 on 19.07.2010 for 50 days.  As per their legal notice and the E-mail complaints proved that the Opposite Parties disconnected the DTH service on 27.08.2010 i.e., 10 days before the due date which amounts to deficiency in service.

In view of the above discussion, we direct the Opposite Parties to restore DTH service connection to the Complainant’s viewing card No.01506252827 and also pay compensation of Rs.5,000/-  towards the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the Complainant.  Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses.  Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. 

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                          

ORDER

            The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Parties are directed to restore DTH service connection to the Complainant’s viewing card No.01506252827 and also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as cost of the litigation expenses.  Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order. 

        On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Parties are directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the total amount from the date of failure till the date of payment.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14^th day of January 2011.)

PRESIDENT                    MEMBER                              MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Koosappa Gowda – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1 – 01.09.2010: E-mail complaint sent to the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C2 – 01.09.2010: Reply of the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C3 – 03.09.2010: E-mail complaint sent to the 1^st Opposite Party.

Ex C4 – 30.08.2010: Regd. Lawyer’s notice received by the Complainant.

Ex C5 – 19.09.2010: Reply sent by the Complainant.

Ex C6 – 17.09.2010: Postal receipt.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

• Nil -

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Parties: 

• Nil -

Dated:14.01.2011                            PRESIDENT