Date of Filling      :  10.04.2015.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  11.08.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

PRESENT:  THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.,              …    PRESIDENT

                     TMT.  S.  SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                          …    MEMBER - I

Consumer Complaint No.23/2015

(Dated this Friday the 11^th day of August 2016)

Thanikainathan,

S/o. Late. Egambaram,

No.1/473, Bazaar Street,

Kadambathur,

Thiruvallur Taluk & District - 631 203.                                          … Complainant.

/ Versus /

1.  The Authorized Signatory,

     M/s. S.C. Shah and Co (P) Ltd.,

     No.3, Venkateswara Nagar,

     Arcot Road,

     Valsaravakkam,

     Chennai - 600 087.

2.  Bharti Airtel Limited,

    Oceanic Towers, 8^th Floor,

    No.101, Santhome High Road,

    Chennai - 600 028.

3. The Airtel DTH Customer Service,

    No.27/2, Opp. Ragavandra Kalyanamandabam,

    Viswanathapuram Main Road,

    Kodambakkam,

    Chennai - 600 024.

4.  Sri Marketing,

     No.18/36, Agaram Street,

     Thiruvallur - 602 001.                                                       … Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 28.07.2016 in the presence of Thiru. S. Muthukumaravel, Counsel for the complainant, Thiru. B. Guruprasath, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and the 1, 3 & 4^th opposite parites are set Ex-parte for non appearance and  having perused the documents and evidences on the side of the complainant and  2^nd opposite party this Forum delivered the following,

                                                ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S.  PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the 1 to 4 opposite parties for seeking relief to put the DTH system into a running position and to repay a sum of Rs.1,600/-, being the amount of DTH System together with interest, to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and torture caused to the complainant which leads to deficiency in service and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and torture which amounts to unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties with cost Rs.5,000/-.

2.       The brief averments of the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant has purchased Airtel DTH Cable system from the 1^st opposite party wide voucher no.VA.2207 & VA 890 for a sum of Rs.1,600/- dated: 01.01.2015.  The complainant in order to celebrate the New Year, he has also purchased the Sony LED TV from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant has eagerly purchased the Airtel DTH service from the 1^st opposite party to watch the exciting programs and enjoy the life and the complainant’s family also wish to buy the new system.  The 1^st opposite party fixed the system on 05.01.2015. From the day of installation, the complainant is unable to view the programs because of a technical reason as stated by the 4^th opposite party, who is the authorized service centre for Thiruvallur.

3.       Evenafter the lapse of 20 days, the 4th opposite party never intended to solve the technical problem.  The complainant had purchased the system based on the confidence upon the 2^nd opposite party company reputation and to that effect the complainant had disconnected the local cable system in December 2014 itself.  The  DTH system was purchased on the new year, the complainant had waited patiently for one month by not viewing the programs but the DTH system could not be switched on because of the technical reason. Consequently the complainant is also unable to switch on the LED TV and therefore the complainant is put to mental stress and mental agony.  Though the complainant had several times made a complaint through phone calls and E-mails but all the efforts of the complainant ended in vain.  At last the 4^th opposite party had revealed that the non availability of the pincode number to the DTH system for the complainant’s village so that the DTH system could not be connected to the satellite system.

4.       The act of the opposite parties amounts to gross negligence and deficiency in service.  Therefore, the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 27.01.2015 and it was refused by the 1^st opposite party and served to the 3 & 4^th opposite parties.  After the service of the notice, there was no reply from the opposite parties which leads to further deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

5.       The contention of written version of the 2^nd opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

          The 2^nd opposite party denies all the allegations contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.  It provides the service of providing Mobile Telephony to its customers in several circles within India.  It is a license under the Indian Telegraph Act and is carrying out an activity of great National importance viz. to increase the tele-density within the country as provided in the National Telecom Policy.  The complainant is not a consumer and the complaint under the Consumer Protection act, 1986 is not maintainable and the same deserves to be dismissed in limini.

6.       The complainant had purchased the Airtel DTH Cable system from the 1^st opposite party who is a retailer.  The 1^st opposite party retailer had sold the alleged connection to the complainant in a LED TV offer.  The 1^st opposite party retailer placed the order with the 2^nd opposite party without complying certain technical requirements and hence the said order placed by the 1^st opposite party was not reflected in the system maintained by the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence due to the aforesaid reason the 2^nd opposite party was not able to activate the alleged DTH connection to the complainant.  Immediately, on receipt of the complaint in this regard, the said complaint was immediately attended by the 2^nd opposite party and it was identified that the alleged DTH conneciton was not activated only due to the afore mentioned reasons.  Subsequently, the 2^nd opposite party had instructed the 1^st opposite party to rebook connection/ order with the 2^nd opposite party along with the required technical inputs and the same was done by the 1^st opposite party retailer as per the instructions given to them in this regard.

7.       It is untrue to state that the 2^nd opposite party was not able to solve the technical problem.  The complainant has not given any material particulars in proof of all his allegations raised by him against the 2^nd opposite party in his complaint.  The 2^nd opposite party had tried to contact through phone calls for activation of the alleged DTH connection but the complainant is not responding to the calls made by the 2^nd opposite party on several occasions tried to establish their contact with the complainant in order to activate the alleged DTH connection but the complainant wantonly declines the calls made by the 2^nd opposite party.

8.       The 2^nd opposite party had duly complies all the request made by the complainant were properly attended.  There was no deficiency or negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation for mental agony and other sufferings as claimed by the complainant.  The complaint being devoid of merits, it deserves to be dismissed with costs.

9.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked.   Whereas, on the side of the  2^nd opposite party, proof affidavit is filed and no documents marked for his evidence.

10.      At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

11.     Oral arguments adduced but failed to file the written arguments on the side of the complainant.  Inspite of sufficient time given, the 2^nd opposite party has neither come forward to file written arguments nor to adduce oral arguments. Hence, it is closed.

          12.     Point no.1:-

Regarding this complaint, it is averred that the complainant had purchased an Airtel DTH Cable System  from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.1,600/- to watch the exciting programs to be broadcast in the LED TV and even after a lapse of 20 days from the date of purchase, due to the non availability of the pin code number to the DTH System for the complainant’s village so that the DTH system could not be connected to the satellite system which clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and thereby, the complainant is put to mental stress and agony though he has spent much more money in purchase the Sony LED TV along with the Airtel DTH Cable System.  It is further averred that inspite of sending legal notice to the opposite parties, they have not come forward to rectify the defects which amounts for deficiency of service.

13.     On the other hand, irrespective of the 1, 3 & 4^th opposite parties are remained Ex-parte and the 2^nd opposite party would content that the 1^st opposite party retailer placed the order with the 2^nd opposite party company without complying certain technical requirements and hence the said order placed by the 1^st opposite party was not reflected in the system maintained by the 2^nd opposite party and only for the said reason the 2^nd opposite party was not able to activate the alleged DTH connection of the complainant and immediately, on receipt of the complaint in this regard, it was attended by the 2^nd opposite party and it was identified that the alleged DTH connection was not activated and therefore, instructed the 1^st opposite party to rebook connection / order with the 2^nd opposite party company along with the required technical inputs and the same was done by the 1^st opposite party retailer and therefore, it is untrue that the 2^nd opposite party was not able to solve the technical problem.  It is further contended that, infact the 2^nd opposite party had tried to contact through phone calls for activation of the DTH connection, the complainant is not responding and he wantonly declines the calls made by the 2^nd opposite party and therefore, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party since the 2^nd opposite party had duly attended all the request made by the complainant. 

14.     At this juncture, on careful perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is narrated that he had purchased the Sony LED TV from S.C. Shah & Co (P) Ltd with the Airtel DTH TV with USB for Rs.14,900/- through Ex.A1 and to recharge the Airtel DTH he has paid Rs.1,600/- and for which Ex.A2, Airtel Recharge Coupon has been issued.   Though, it is admitted by the complainant that the Airtel DTH is a gift along with the Sony LED TV, but the complainant has paid Rs.1,600/- for the recharge through Ex.A2 and therefore, the complaint clearly defines as Consumer under Act Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In this regard, the contention raised by the 2^nd opposite party is not sustainable. On perusal of Ex.A3, it reveals the fact that the complainant has sent  E-mail communications on 16.01.2015 but till date Airtel DTH connection is not activated to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant sent E-mail connection to the opposite party about the non-updation regarding the activation.  Furthermore, the complainant has issued Ex.A4, legal notice to the opposite parties dated 27.01.2015 and the same was acknowledged by the 3 & 4^th opposite parties and the acknowledgement cards are marked as Ex.6 Series and the 1^st opposite party refused the same which is marked as Ex.A5.   Even thereafter, not replied in order to comply with the request of the complainant by the opposite parties which clearly shows the inattitude of the opposite parties.

15.     At this point of time, it is clearly admitted by the 2^nd opposite party regarding the purchase of Airtel DTH connection from the opposite party and the same has not  been activated as alleged by the complainant.  But for the reason stated by the 2^nd opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party placed an order with the 2^nd opposite party without complying certain technical requirements and therefore, the 2^nd opposite party was not able to activate the alleged DTH connection to the complainant.  But subsequently, it was attended and instructed by the 1^st opposite party to rebook the connection with the 2^nd opposite party and the same was done by the 1^st opposite party.  While so, infact no evidence put forth before this Forum in order to establish the same.  Moreover, the 1^st opposite party remained Ex-parte and therefore, this Forum cannot come to conclusion without any materials produced except with the version of the 2^nd opposite party and the same is liable to be rejected.  Similarly, the next contention raised by the 2^nd opposite party is that inspite of repeated calls to the complainant for activation of the alleged DTH connection but the complainant is not responding and wantonly declines the said calls for the reason best known to him is also lacking of evidence.   In this aspect also, none of the documents filed to show that the 2^nd opposite party had made several calls to the complainant to rectify the defect and has taken steps for the activation of the alleged DTH connection to the complainant.

16.     Such being so, the 2^nd opposite party is the authority to activate and he ought to have activated the DTH connection which are provided through the 1^st opposite party but the 2^nd opposite party has failed to do so to the complainant  immediately to the date of purchase of DTH connection and for the subsequent days.  The reason stated by the 2^nd opposite party, is that the 1^st opposite party without complying certain technical requirements, he has placed an order with the 2^nd opposite party, cannot be acceptable since it is the matter between the 1 & 2^nd opposite parties.  Since due the inactive of the 1 or 2^nd opposite party the complainant, who being the purchaser will not be affected at any cost.

17.     From the foregoing among other facts and circumstances, it is crystal clear that the 2^nd opposite party admitted that the DTH connection was not activated in the initial stage of purchase of the Airtel DTH cable connection by the complainant and no documents filed for reactivation of the same to the complainant filed by the 2^nd opposite party till the date of this complaint.   Hence, it goes without saying that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and the same has been proved by the complainant with available documents.  Thus point no.1 is answered accordingly.

18.     Point no.2:-

In view of the conclusion arrived in point no.1, this Forum concludes that the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost.

19.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 1 to 4 opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to repay a sum of Rs.1,600/-,  being recharge amount of DTH Cable system, vide voucher no.VA890 dated:01.01.2015 to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation in total, for causing mental agony due to the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and Rs.3,000/- towards cost, totally of Rs.9,600/- (Rupees nine thousand six hundred only).  Regarding other reliefs, this complaint is dismissed.

 The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9.5% till the date of payment.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 11^th   August  2016.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

Nil.

Sd/-****                                                                                        Sd/-****

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT