cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of October 2012
Filed on : 20/07/2012
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 440/2012
Between
P. Sarvothama Rao, : Complainant
“APSARA”, 62/1314, (party-in-person)
Ashoka road, Kaloor,
Kochi-682 017.
And
1. M/s. Dish TV India Ltd., : Opposite parties
Reg. Off. ESSEL HOUSE, B-10, (1st O.P. absent)
Lawrence Road Industrial Area,
Delhi-110 035 rep. by their CEO.
2. M/s. Prompt Support Service (2nd O.P. by authorized
(P) Ltd. (Dish TV Service Franchise representive)
at Ernakulam) 6th Floor,
Nabeel Plaza, Pallimukku,
M.G. Road, Kochi-682 016
rep. by their CEO.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
On 30-03-2012 the complainant paid Rs. 700/- for DISH TV DTH service and for 215 channels platinum plus recharge pack for a period of 2 months and one month extra. The amount was paid to the 1st opposite party through internet online banking. The 1st opposite party promised to recharge all the 215 channels within 24 hours of receipt of the money. The recharge was effected by the 1st opposite party only on 16-04-2012. The technicians of the 2nd opposite party levied Rs. 150/- from the complainant towards service charge. While so the 1st opposite party deactivated the connection on 28-06-2012 that is 18 days before the due date of next recharge. In spite of repeated requests the opposite parties failed to provide the facility and the complainant could not watch IPL cricket matches during the 1st half of April 2012 and the semi finals and final of the Euro Cup 2012. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.
2. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:
The 2nd opposite party is only a service franchisee of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party being the service Franchisee of the 1st opposite party had serviced the STB of the complainant on 16-04-2012. The 2nd opposite party had charged an amount of Rs. 150/- towards service charges. Since no relief is sought for against the 2nd opposite party the 2nd opposite party is an unnecessary party to the complaint.
3. Despite receipt of notice of this complaint from this Forum the 1st opposite party decided not to contest the matter for reasons of their own. No oral evidence was adduced by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A11 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd opposite party. Heard the complainant who appeared in person.
4. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs. 15,000/- from the opposite parties together with costs of the proceedings.
5. The complainant recharged his device as per offer with South Platinum plus pack for 2 months with one month free on 30-03-2012 by paying Rs. 700/- evident from Ext. A1. Thereafter the complainant sent Ext. A3 communication dated 01-04-2012, Ext. A4 dated 02-04-2012, Ext. A5 dated 07-04-2012, Ext. A6 dated 09-4-2012, Ext. A7 dated 09-04-2012, Ext. A8 dated 13-04-2012, Ext. A9 dated 14-04-2012 to the opposite party highlighting his grievance. However the 1st opposite party activated the Dish T.V. STB only on 16-04-2012. The 1st opposite party disconnected the same on 28-06-2012.
6. According to the complainant he is entitled to get the service of the 1st opposite party from 16-04-2012 to 15-07-2012. Nothing is on record to discard the contentions of the complainant, the 1st opposite party being absent. The denial of service to the complainant for the agreed period amounts to deficiency in their service. It is pertinent to note that though the 1st opposite party admitted in Ext. A4 that the complainant is entitled to get the service for 3 months, they went back on their promise and stated in Ext. A11 that the complainant is not eligible for the same. The above conduct of the 1st opposite party amounts not only to deficiency in service but also to unfair trade practice for which the 1st opposite party is answerable. No specific allegation is raised in the complaint against the 2nd opposite party which entitles them to get relieved from any liability though for which the 1st opposite party is primarily liable The complainant contended that he could not watch the IPL cricket match and Euro Foot ball cup due to non compliance of the promise of service of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties for which they are answerable and for no reasons explained. This calls for answerability. So compensation is called for. We fix the compensation at Rs.3,000/- not to mention which includes costs of the proceedings.
7. In the result, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of October 2012
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of e-mail dt. 30-03-2012
A2 : Copy of cash receipt dt. 16-04-2012
A3 : Copy of e-mail dt. 01-04-2012
A4 : Copy of e-mail dt. 02-04-2012
A5 : Copy of e-mail dt. 07-04-2012
A6 : Copy of e-mail dt. 09-04-2012
A7 : Copy of e-mail dt. 09-04-2012
A8 : Copy of e-mail dt. 13-04-2012
A9 : Copy of e-mail dt. 14-04-2012
A10 : Copy of e-mail dt. 30-06-2012
A11 : Copy of e-mail dt. 03-07-2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits : Nil
