<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 20th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2823/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Satheesh. B,Male, aged 36 years,S/o Shri Basavarajaiah(Late)Residing at No.57,Sri Maruthi Nilaya,Janana jyothi nagar,Jnanabharathi,Bangalore – 560056.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s.Modern Telecom,Sales and Service,Telecom Products, Telephones, EPABX IntercomsFax & Mobiles,No.66/4, Jnanabharathi RoadMariyappanapalya,Jnanabharathi Post,Bangalore - 560056<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to take back the defective Reliance Big Dish T.V and pay a compensation of Rs.8,000/- and so also refund of the advance paid on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being carried away with the advertisement banners, pamphlets issued by the OP with regard to the use and utilization of Reliance Big Dish T.V thought of purchasing the same. Thus made payment of Rs.2,000/- to OP on 16.09.2008. OP promised various facilities including that of number of channels he used to get. Though OP received the said amount failed to install the said Dish immediately it took it own sweet time of one month. The said Dish T.V worked hardly for 20 days. Thereafter he noticed certain defects like not covering the number of channels promised earlier. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to provide all the channels and rectify the functioning of the said Dish went in futile. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they never gave assurance regarding getting of all the channels or a particular channel and it has nothing to do with the defects or repairs of the said set up box. It is a look out of the manufacturer. As and when the service center received the complaint from the complainant the defects were attended too. Complainant is getting nearly 144 channels but still made this false and frivolous complaint. No liability lies on the OP either to cure or repair the defects in the said Dish T.V and the box. Complaint is also bad for non joinder of necessary party namely the manufacturer of the said Dish T.V. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant opted to purchase one Reliance big Dish T.V from OP. OP collected Rs.2,000/- on 16.09.2008 promised to install the said big Dish T.V set up box. Rs.2,000/- is collected towards the service of one year. Thereafter for one month that Dish T.V was not installed. This fact is not denied by the OP. Ultimately it was installed on 15.10.2008. Complainant enjoyed the said Dish T.V and channels hardly for 20 days. Thereafter it started giving trouble.<br /> <br /> 7. Complainant expected many more channels. Unfortunately there was no such relay of the said channels. Only 85 channels were relayed as against promised 144. Immediately he brought the defects to the notice of the OP. Those defects were not cured. Though he invested his hard earned money he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Hence he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. As against this trustworthy evidence the defence set out by the OP is that it is not concerned with the defects in the said Dish T.V or the set box. No responsibility or liability lies with the OP either to cure the defect or replace any parts. So this defence itself speaks loudly about the deficiency in service. If OP cannot give the satisfactory service as promised or advertised then why they collected cost of Rs.2,000/- for the said service for one year is not known. According to OP the service center has attended the defects and replaced the defective set box. That means to say OP admits the defects in the said Dish T.V.<br /> <br /> 9. Further OP says that complainant is getting 144 channels whereas complainant says hardly he get 85 channels. Now the burden lies on the OP to substantiate its defence. But it failed to do so. OP want to through burden and blame on the manufacturer of the said Dish T.V and the box. It is unfortunate. On the perusal of the defence set out OP admits the defects in the said Dish T.V and the set box. When that is so, it is a bounden duty of OP to satisfy its customer by providing all the channels as promised that too once when it has collected the necessary charges for one year. On the face of it OP failed to keep up its promise. Here we find deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Of course complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.8,000/-, for this claim basically there is no proof. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to replace the defective Reliance Big Dish T.V with set box and take back the present defective one or refund the cost of the said Dish T.V along with a litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the defective Big Dish T.V sold on 16.09.2008 to the complainant with brand new defect free Dish T.V with set up box and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> <br /> In default OP is directed to refund Rs.2,000/- and take back the defective Reliance Big Dish T.V along with set box and pay a litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />