Karnataka

Gadag

CC/10/2015

H.C.Neelappagoudra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M.R.Hiremath

24 Dec 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs. 

 

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant purchased a DTH (Direct to home) connection from the OP No.2 on 31.03.2011 by paying Rs.1,510/- for which OP No.2 installed the dish of TV network on the building of the complainant and a set-top-box was also installed by OP No.2 bearing card No.41464930290 as per the complaint the complainant submits that the activation had been delayed 19 days even after the relay was not proper it started displaying the messages like no channel, the same has been intimated to OP No.2 on 02.06.2011through a phone, the OP 2 said the complainant to bring the receiver and SIM to OP No.2 shop as said the complainant took them and handed over to the OP No.2. After a day OP returned back the same intimating that product had been repaired for which he had collected the service charges of Rs.150/-, again on 23.06.2011 the S.T.B. started giving the same problem the complainant informed the OP No.2, the OP No.2 again asked the complainant to bring back the receiver and SIM to his shop, after collected Rs.150/- as a service charges returned back the product to the complainant, the problem continued for a long period the complainant had further alleged that OP No.2 had not rectified the problem nor proper service had been provided.   

                            

3.     Complainant further submits that the OP No.2 received the amount of Rs3,052/- as a service charges from different dates from the complainant till date the channels are not relayed properly hence complainants submits that Ops had made deficiency in service and prayed for the relief of Rs.25000/- in total along with interest.          

4.      The predecessor on the seat registered the Complaint and notices were issued to OPs. The OP No.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum through their Advocate and filed his written version. By Op No.1 and same is adopted by OP No.2.

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No.1 and OP No.2:

The Ops had denied all the allegation and averments made by the complainant in complaint and accepted that the DTH had purchased with the OP No.1 in OP No.2’s-Shop (Distributor) and submits that the complainant had enjoyed the service from 02.04.2011 and regularly recharged his subscription pack since from the date of installation and stated that as per the complaint the complainant himself examine the STB with the other distributor and technicians, technician informed that a STB is working fine and also stated that the installation process  had been taken by the trained and experienced technicians of the company.

 

5.     Whereas the warranty of STB is only One year from the date of installation of DTH. And submits that OP No.1 received the service charges from the public and provides the television service facilities, to get the satellite television channels the subscribers have to recharge their packs, Recharge is not service charges in is like a renewal pack for a specific period.

 

6.      The Ops further submits that relay of programs lately and interruption in programs are not in the hands of these Ops the complainant never told the Ops to take back the set-top-box it itself shows that he has used to enjoy the programs and submits that case may be dismissed with cost.             

 

7.      On perusal of the Complaint, allegation and detailed version, the documents on records the Complainant himself has been examined before this Forum as CW1 and got marked the documents as EX C1 to EX C10 are as follows:

1)  EX C1 Service Invoice,

2)  EX C2 Set-up Box SIM Card,

3)  EX C3 Adhaar Card,

4)  EX C4 Letter from complainant to OP,

5) EX C5 Courier Receipt,

6) EX C6 Photo of the complainant,

7) EX C7 CD of the Photo,

8) EX C8 Advertisement Pamp-let,

9) EX C9 Receipts from Keerti Electronics,

10) EX C10 Receipts from Aditya Electronics.

 

        On the other hand, OP No.1 filed a written version and OP NO.2 adopted the same along with unmarked 04 documents are as follows:

1.   Detailed concept of Sun Direct,
2.   Authorization Letter,
3.   Receipts,
4.  Letter written by the OP to the complainant.

8.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:   

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that OPs have made deficiency in service?     Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought?
3.	What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 – As per the final order.

                

R E A S O N S

     9.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since both the points are inter-link and identical, we proceed with both the points together.

10.   The contention of the complainant is that the Complainant purchase a DTH (Direct to home) connection from the OP No.2 on 31.03.2011 by paying Rs.1,510/- for which OP No.2 installed the dish of TV network on the building of the complainant and a set-top-box was also installed by OP No.1 bearing card No.41464930290 as per the complaint the complainant submits that the activation had been delayed 19 days even after that the relay was not proper its started to display the messages like no channel, the same has been intimated to OP No.2 on 02.06.2011through a phone, the OP 2 said the complainant to bring the receiver and SIM to OP No.2 shop as said the complainant took them and handed over to the OP No.2. After a day OP returned back the same intimating that product had been repaired for which he had collected the service charges of Rs.150/-, again on 23.06.2011 the STB started the same problem the complainant informed the OP No.2 the OP No.2 again asked the complainant to bring back the receiver and SIM to his shop, after collected RS 150/- as a service charges returned back the product to the complainant, the problem continued for a long period the complainant had further alleged that OP No.2 had not rectified the problem nor proper service had been provided.   

 

 11.  The OPs denied all the allegation and averments made by the complainant in complaint and accept that the DTH had purchased with the OP No.1 in OP No.2’s-Shop (Distributor)  and submits that the complainant had enjoyed the service from 02.04.2011 and regularly recharged his subscription pack since from the date of installation and stated that as per the complaint the complainant himself examined the STB with the other distributor and technicians, technician informed that STB is working fine and also stated that the installation process  had been taken by the trained and experienced technicians of the company.

 

12.    Whereas the warranty of the S.T.B. is the only one year from the date of the installation of DTH.

 

13.    On perusal of the documents on record produced by the complainant, is very hard to clear that the D.T..H. S.T.B. was not working from the date of installation, the complainant has produced Service Invoice dated: 31.03.2011. The documents marked as EX. C4 and EX. C5 establishes that the OP No.2 had failed to respond the Complainant properly and also the service had been not provided to the satisfaction of the complainant.

14.    OP No.1 is the Service Provider and the OP No.2 is an Authorized Dealer of OP No.1. The Ops received the charges to relay the Doordarshan Channel, the complainant had subscribe the package by paying subscription amount, the OP had stated that the complaint had been filed after a lapse of four years where the limitation is barred. By carefully going through the documents on record, the OP No.1 had came forward for replacement of existing S.D. S.T.B. in case of S.D. S.T.B. is found to be defective by which it is very much clear that the OP No.1 is ready to replace the existing S.D. S.T.B. with a new one if found defective. Such being the fact, it is unnecessary to discuss further. The OP No.1 who is the Authorized distributor of OP NO.1 who receive the Service charges from the customer it is his duty to respond and rectify the problem found by the consumer to their satisfaction in which OP No2 had failed to do so. Hence, OP No.2 had made deficiency in service since complainant is liable for partial relief. Hence, we answer Point No.1 is in affirmative and Point No.2 is in partly affirmative.

 

15.   POINT NO.3: For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass a following:  

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed with costs.
2. The OP No.1 is directed to replace the existing S.D. S.T.B. with a new one along with six months of free subscription with one year warranty.
3. Further, OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards mental agony and harassment.
4. Parties have to bear their own costs.
5. Ops are directed to comply this Order within thirty days from the date of this Order, failing which OP No.1 has to refund Rs.1,510/- (One thousand five hundred and ten) along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing, till realization to the complainant and OP No.2 has to pay an interest at 12% p.a. (Rs.2,000/-) from the date of filing, till realization.
6. Send the copies of this Order to the parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 24^th day of December, 2016)

 

Member

President