DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of November 2022
Filed on: 12/10/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C.NO. 428/2018
COMPLAINANT
Priya Anand, “Punartham”, Thayyil Puthenveedu, Njanakkal road, Near Bhavan’s Adarsha Vidyalaya, Thuthiyur, CSEZ P.O., Kakkanad 682037.
Between
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Dish TV India Ltd., FC-19, Sector 16A, Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh Pin 201301
2. Franchisee Office, M/s. A.V. Marketing, 1st Floor, Kunnath Building, Palarivattom, Cochin 682025.
(Rep. by Adv. B. Krishna Kumar, Harikripa Building, M.M. Road, Ernakulam)
FINAL O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Complainant, allured by the advertisement of opposite party No.1, the complainant wished to avail of the package for Dish T. V. The complainant would get 60 days subscription free on paying the rental for one year as per the opposite party’s promise. Therefore, the complainant remitted Rs.1,812/- on 26/06/2018 in cash, which was the advance rent for one year, at the franchisee office the second opposite party of the first opposite party at Palarivattom, Ernakulam. The above payment was not been reflected in the complainant’s account and he was not able to avail of the offer promised by the opposite parties. When the complainant contacted the customer care of the opposite parties that his payment was Rs. 12/- less than the required amount. The complainant contacted the franchisee office of the opposite party (Dish TV India Limited) and they were asked to pay an additional amount of Rs.302/-, which is equivalent to the rent for two months the opposite parties informed that the charge list was given to them, the payment to be made for the above-mentioned offer is Rs.1,812/- and they have no other way to help the complainant. As a consumer, it is not justifiable for the complainant to suffer a loss for the mistake committed by the opposite parties or their franchisee. Hence this complaint.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the first and second opposite parties and they received the notice but did not appear before the Commission and did not file their version. Hence the first and second opposite parties set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 9 documents that were marked as Exbt.A-1- to A-9.
Exhibit A-1: Copy of Aadhar Card
Exhibit A2: Copy of Bill dated 26/06/2018
Exhibit A-3: Copy of mobile screen shot
Exhibit A4: Copy of e-mail dated 07/08/2018
Exhibit A5: Copy of e-mail dated 19/08/2018
Exhibit A6: Copy of e-mail dated 19/08/2018
Exhibit A7: Copy of e-mail dated 24/08/2018
Exhibit A8: Copy of e-mail dated 26/08/2018
Exhibit A9: Copy of e-mail dated 26/08/2018
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The Complainants fall under the ambit of the definition of a 'consumer' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 2 (d) a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.
Hence, the complaint is maintainable as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. (Point No. i).
In the above case, the Complainant has produced EXHIBIT A1 to A9. All in support of his case. The above complaint was filed against the action on part of the opposite parties. The complainant wished to avail of the package for Dish T.V. for the last 3 years. The complainant would get 60 days subscription free on paying the rental for one year as per the opposite party’s promise. Therefore, the complainant remitted Rs.1,812/-on 26/06/2018 in cash, which was the advance rent for one year, at the franchisee’s office. The above payment was not been reflected in the complainant’s account and he was not able to avail of the offer promised by the opposite parties. The complainants who had availed the services of both the opposite parties were made to suffer due to the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants for the deficiency of service on their part. We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties but did not file their version. Hence the opposite parties set ex-parte. The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 9 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-9. The opposite parties did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this Commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence into unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint was filed. Despite due service, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties, hence, they proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 26.04.2022.
The Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in failing to provide the complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the complainants.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainants for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainants had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainants.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs.1,812/- (Rupees one thousand eight hundred twelve only) being the advance rent paid by the complainant.
ii. The Opposite Parties shall pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for loss caused to the complainants due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the opposite parties.
iii. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 30th day of November 2022
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: Copy of Aadhar Card
Exhibit A2: Copy of Bill dated 26/06/2018
Exhibit A-3: Copy of mobile screen shot
Exhibit A4: Copy of e-mail dated 07/08/2018
Exhibit A5: Copy of e-mail dated 19/08/2018
Exhibit A6: Copy of e-mail dated 19/08/2018
Exhibit A7: Copy of e-mail dated 24/08/2018
Exhibit A8: Copy of e-mail dated 26/08/2018
Exhibit A9: Copy of e-mail dated 26/08/2018
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No.428/2018
Order Date: 16/11/2022
