Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/67/2015

Jag Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Reliance Digital Retail Ltd, & ord. - Opp.Party(s)

S.D. Bansal

19 Mar 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	67 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	16.03.2015
Date of Decision	:	19/03/2015

 

Jag Pal S/o Sh.Bishamber Ram, R/o H.No. 1010, Sector 23-B, Chandigarh, now resident of H.No.274, Sector-22/A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. M/s Reliance Digital Retail Limited, 5^th  Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002, through its Managing Director.

 

2. M/s Reliance Digital Retail Limited, Reliance Corporate Park, WS 230, Building No.4, 1^st Floor, C-Wing, Thane, Belapur Road, Ghansoli, Navi Mumbai – 400701, through its General Manager.

 

3. M/s Reliance Communication Limited, SCO No.135-136, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh. S.D. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

 

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 29.01.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.        The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased a Dish TV connection from the Opposite Parties, in the year 2008 and subscribed to it, on payment of Rs.3990/-, through their authorized distributor namely M/s Bajaj Communications, SCF No.24, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh. It was stated that the complainant was allotted connection/smart card bearing no.200525789601. It was further stated that the complainant subscribed to the plan, which covered almost all the television channels. It was further stated that the complainant had been regularly paying necessary subscription charges, in advance, to the Opposite Parties, towards the said connection. It was further stated that, on 12.06.2013, the set-top box stopped receiving signal of the network of the Opposite Parties, despite the fact that the complainant had been paying the usage charges, in advance, and also approximately Rs.1000/- had already been lying deposited for the said purpose, with them (Opposite Parties). It was further stated that the complainant made a complaint to the Opposite Parties, to rectify the error of non-receipt of signal of the network. It was further stated that the complainant instantly got SMS, from the Opposite Parties that the said defect would be rectified shortly, but to no avail.
3.        It was further stated that on 15/16.06.2013, the complainant was deprived of watching the news, regarding natural disaster/flood hit area, in Uttrakhand and cloud burst in Kedarnath and Badrinath, where his near ones were stranded. It was further stated that the complainant was deprived of using the said network facility. It was further stated that no prior notice for deposit of any amount, towards the said connection was ever received by the complainant, from the Opposite Parties. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to take back the set top box, dish etc.; refund the amount of Rs.1000/-, referred to above; pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs, for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency in rendering service and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.
4.        Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, admitted that the complainant had purchased a Dish TV connection from the Opposite Parties and subscribed to it, in the year 2008, on payment of Rs.3990/-, through M/s Bajaj Communications. It was pleaded that the District Forum at Chandigarh, had no territorial Jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint. It was further pleaded that since M/s Bajaj Communications, from which the complainant had purchased the said set-top box, had not been made a party to the complaint, as such, the same was bad for misjoinder of parties. It was stated that as per Annexure R-1, on 12.06.2013, balance in the account of the complainant was Rs.461.53Ps., instead of Rs.1,000/-. It was further stated that the validity of the pack had expired on 12.06.2013. It was further stated that the complainant failed to pay further amount, to continue the facility of the said network. It was further stated that SMSs sent to the complainant were the general flash messages, wherein he was intimated that the pack subscribed by him was liable to be withdrawn,  and whenever the same was upgraded or the offer was changed, the subscriber was called for choosing the new subscription pack. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5.        Despite deemed service, none put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte on 26.08.2014, by the District Forum.
6.        The complainant and Opposite Party No.3, led evidence, in support of their case.
7.        After hearing the complainant, in person, Counsel for Opposite Party No.3, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 
8.        Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
9.        We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
10.        The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, in its written version filed by Opposite Party No.3/ respondent no.3, a stand was taken by it, that admittedly on 12.06.2013, there was an amount of Rs.461.53Ps., available in the account of the complainant. He further submitted that if this amount was available, in the account of the complainant, then how validity of the connection, in question, could expire on 12.06.2013, without utilization of this amount. He further submitted that after the complaint had been made by the complainant, regarding non-working of the connection on 12.06.2013, it was the duty of the respondents/Opposite Parties, to inform him that they could remove the fault, only on the condition if some more amount was deposited, and the connection was revalidated, but nothing was intimated. He further submitted that, as such, there was clear-cut deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, but the District Forum was wrong, in holding to the contrary.
11.        After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, at the preliminary stage, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It may be stated here, that when a person subscribes to a particular package, he knows, as to when the validity thereof was going to expire. It is evident that from Ann.R-1 (copy of the balance statement) that on 12.06.2013, the account balance of the complainant was Rs.461.53Ps.  Undisputedly, the validity of the said connection expired on 12.06.2013. The moment the validity of the connection expired on 12.06.2013, the services being rendered by the Opposite Parties, came to an end. It was, under these circumstances, that the set-top box of the complainant stopped receiving signals. Even if, some amount was still lying in the account of the complainant, and the validity period thereof had expired, then the set-top box would not receive the signals, until and unless the connection was got recharged/revalidated before the expiry of the validity period. The complainant was very well aware of the fact that the validity of his connection had expired on 12.06.2013, but he himself did not get it recharged/revalidated. It was the choice of the complainant of using the amount, in his account, till 12.06.2013, the date on which the validity of the package expired. Thereafter, if any amount was lying in his account, the same automatically lapsed. Had he got recharged the validity/revalidated his connection, before the expiry thereof, the matter would have been different. The contention of the Counsel for the appellant/ complainant, to the effect that since a sum of Rs.461.53Ps., was still balance, in the account of the complainant, on 12.06.2013, the validity could not expire, is devoid of merit, and the same stands rejected. The District Forum, was, thus right, in holding that the Opposite Parties were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
12.        No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
13.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
14.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
15.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

March 19, 2015

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

 

Rg