Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/3

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Marshal Electronics - Opp.Party(s)

Rajneesh Garg

04 May 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        03         

Date of Institution :   4.01.2016

Date of Decision :     4.05.2015

 

Ravinder Singh s/o Sh Sukhdev Singh s/o Balvir Singh r/o Village Randhawa, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.                                                            

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Marshal Electronics, Near Thakur Dwara, Opposite Vinod Electrical Works, Faridkot through its Proprietor Sanjeev Kumar.

2. Airtel DTH, Airtel Centre, Plot No..16, Udhyog Vihar, Phase-IV, Gurgaon (Haryana), through its Managing Director / Chairman / Incharge.

....Opposite Parties(OPs)

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

 

Present:  Sh Rajneesh Garg, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

               Gurmit Singh Saini, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

               OP-2  Exparte.

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to refund Rs.1,510/-and for further directing OPs to pay Rs 50,000/-on account of compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith Rs 11,000/-as litigation expenses.

   2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that for last many months, complainant was using Airtel Digital T.V.dish of the OP-2, but as the services of OP-2 were not upto mark and signal was also not proper so, he stopped using the same and did not recharge it. On 30.11.2015, complainant received a telephonic call from the employee of OP-2, who requested complainant to get recharged his Airtel dish from the authorized representative/ OP-1. Said employee of OP-2 assured complainant of proper signal and good picture quality and also assured that if complainant gets recharged from OP-1 for Rs1,510/-, then, already existing package would continue and same would work for next 10 months. Assurance for uninterrupted service alongwith existing package including sports channel was also given. Thereafter, on assurance of OP-2, complainant deposited Rs.1,510/-and message to this effect was received on his mobile phone. After getting recharged the same, complainant informed said employee of OP-2 over his mobile phone that he has deposited the amount and got recharged his connection, but despite this, Ops did not activate his dish and disconnected the sports channel from the package without informing the complainant. Sports channel was being used by complainant, but OPs wrongly and illegally disconnected the same, which caused great harassment to complainant. On this, complainant lodged many complaints with Ops in their customer care centre on 2.12.2015 and 3.12.2015 but all in vain. Complainant also complained to said employee of Ops, but Ops started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and then, refused to admit the lawful claim of complainant. This act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to refund Rs.1,510/- for recharge made by him alongwith Rs 50,000/-for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant besides Rs 11,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                               Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 8.01.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                               On receipt of notice issued by this Forum,        OP-1 appeared in the Forum through Counsel and filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable in this Forum as complainant has no locus standi to file it and moreover, complainant did not serve with any notice to answering OP before filing the present complaint. It is averred that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum and has falsely dragged him into false litigation and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that he recharged the Airtel Dish T. V. Of complainant for amount of Rs.1,510/- on the asking of complainant and message to this effect was also received on his mobile number. He further averred that he has done his duty as per rules and has not caused any harassment to complainant. OP-1 stated that he has not committed any illegality and matter in question does not relate with him. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought are too refuted with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5                                                 Notice containing copy of complaint was issued to OP-2 through registered post dt 13.01.2016, but same has not received back undelivered in the Forum. Acknowledgment might have been mis-laid or lost in transit. Statutory period expired. Case was called up many times, but OP-2 did not appear in the Forum either in person or through counsel to defend the allegations levelled by complainant. Therefore, vide order dt 4.03.2016, OP-2 was proceeded against exarte.

6                                                            The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                       To rebut the evidence of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjiv Kumar/OP-1 as Ex Op-1 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

8                                                   We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

9                                                 Ld Counsel for complainant argued that for last many months, complainant was using Airtel Digital T.V.dish of the OP-2, but due to the poor services, weak signals and no picture clarity, complainant stopped using the same and did not recharge it. On 30.11.2015, complainant received a telephonic call from the employee of OP-2, who requested complainant to get recharged his Airtel dish from the authorized representative / OP-1. Said employee of OP-2 assured complainant of proper signal and good picture quality and also assured that if complainant gets recharged from OP-1 for Rs1,510/-, then, already existing package would continue and same would work for next 10 months. It is further contended that assurance for uninterrupted service alongwith existing package including sports channel was also given. It is contended that on assurance of OP-2, complainant deposited Rs.1,510/-and message to this effect was received on his mobile phone. Complainant also informed said employee of OP-2 that he has deposited the amount and got recharged his connection, but despite this, Ops did not activate his dish and without any information or intimation to complainant, disconnected the sports channel from the package recharged by complainant. Sports channel was being used by complainant, but this illegal disconnection of sports channel caused great harassment to complainant. It is submitted that complainant lodged many complaints with Ops in their customer care centre on 2.12.2015 and 3.12.2015 but that also bore no fruit. Complainant also requested the said employee of Ops, but Ops started putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and then, refused to admit the lawful claim of complainant. Complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint and also prayed for compensation and litigation expenses.

10                                                 To controvert the arguments of complainant counsel, ld counsel for OP-1 argued that allegations levelled by complainant against OP-1 are false and baseless. Ld counsel for OP-1 averred that OP-1 recharged the Airtel Dish T.V of complainant for Rs. 1,510/- and that too on the asking of complainant. He has done his duty as per rules and he has not caused any harassment to complainant. The OP-1 has nothing to do with the offer given by the employees of OP-2 to complainant, rather OP-1 is only facilitator for recharging the dish TV connection and has no concern with the channels provided by Airtel Digital T V operator. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and  complainant has falsely dragged him into the present litigation. He has prayed for dismissing the complaint with costs.

11.                           From the careful perusal of affidavits and documents placed on record and after hearing the arguments addressed by respective parties, it is observed that complainant is the consumer of Ops and admission made by OP-1 that he recharged the said Airtel Dish T V of complainant, proves this fact. Complainant availed the services of Ops by making payment of Rs.1,510/- and Ops are bound to do their duty of providing services efficiently. Disconnection of the said sports channel of complainant without any intimation to him by OP-2 shows the fact that services rendered by them are poor and they did not provide the services efficiently and properly as should have been provided by them as per their promise, thereby making them liable to pay for it.

12                                           In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint  in hand is hereby accepted against OP-2.Complaint against OP-1 stands dismissed. OP-2 is directed to refund the amount of  Rs 1,510/- as price of recharge of said Airtel Dish T.V with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the complaint till realization. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.3,000/-to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses of Rs 2,000/-. Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 4.05.2016

Member                                    President                                                                      

(P Singla)                               (Ajit Aggarwal)