Complaint filed on 31/10/2013
Complaint disposed on 31/03/2015
O R D E R
(Ms. Cynthia A. Colaco, Member)
1. By this order we shall dispose of the present complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act as against the Opposite Party and in the same, the Complainant has alleged as under:-
…2/-
a) That the Complainant, in order to purchase a set top box connection for his TV did a lot of market research before investing in the same and also on discussing the same with various persons, purchased from M/s Tata Sky Ltd, as they provided the best quality of service and most number of channels at a reasonable price.
b) That the Complainant took a connection at his residence bearing subscriber ID No. 1000034943 and purchased the set top box from the dealer of the Opposite Party.
c) That playing badminton as his new exercise he became an avid badminton spectator and therefore followed international as well as national badminton events which were telecast on one or the other sports channels from the various sports channels offered by the Opposite Party. Also as per the market policy of the Opposite Party any channels which are not part of the subscribers channel pack could be subscribed through the Opposite Party as ‘add on’ channels.
d) That somewhere in mid October 2013, two sports channels namely Neo Sports and Neo Prime were not being shown on the connection of Tata sky although the same were available in the last week of September of the same year.
e) That the Complainant was informed by some person that the said two channels had been switched off permanently by the Opposite Party, however the Complainant was confident that the Opposite Party would not arbitrarily take such a step of switching off two sports channels.
f) That as the sports channel did not reappear, the Complainant sent an e-mail on 26.10.2013 to the Customer Help Desk, which email has been relied on and reads as under:
"This mail is to inform you that I want to subscribe /add two sports channels, Neo Sports and Neo Prime, which are not
…3/-
part of my current pack , however, I would want to add them now as I want to watch the badminton world federation(BWF) Super Series events. I cannot seem to locate Neo Sports and Neo Prime in the list of Channels which appear in the TV Guide on Tata Sky DTH. I request you to communicate to me if there is any change in the channel number of the two channels and add the said channels at the earliest. Thanking you,”
g) That he desired to watch the Badminton World Federation (BWF) Super Series which were to take place in the last three months of the
year 2013 and which were to be telecast only on Neo Sports or Neo Prime Channel and was therefore hopeful that the channels would be reinstated, however the same were not restored subsequent to the email.
h) That purchasing a new connection would involve huge expenditure apart from the fact that a similar situation of arbitrarily removing certain channels could arise leaving the customer in the lurch.
i) The Opposite Party through their representative replied to the email which is relied on and brought on record wherein it is stated as under:-
“Greetings from Tata sky , Thank you for your email dated 26.10.2013. 08:34:10 A.M.
As per your request regarding Neo Channel we would like to inform you that Neo Sports and Neo Prime Channels are removed from the Tata Sky Platform and we have added new channels like Z Anmol and M Tunes on Tata
Sky Platform. We regret for the inconvenience caused to you.
As of to-day the current account balance is Rs. 57.57 and due date is 09/11/2013. For any further assistance please feel free to write to us at
You also have the option of calling the Tata Sky help line at the below numbers
All lines (except MTNL): 1860 500 6633
MTNL MUMBAI/DELHI 1860 425 6633.
You can also chat online with us by logging into www.mytatasky.com available 24X7.”
…5/-
j) That the Complainant was misled to believe that they would add channels which were not part of the continuous subscription channel package and further that the rules now included the removal of two channels which could not be added as “add on” channels.
k) That this act on the part of the Opposite Party constitutes deficiency in service as the service which was promised initially was no longer provided.
l) That being a badminton events enthusiast he was deprived of watching the said sports unless he opted to shift to another DTH Operator which would incur cost or not watch it at all.
2. The complaint is filed praying (1) for directions to the Opposite Party to provide the channels Neo Sports and Neo Prime on the connection given by the Opposite Party (2) to pay compensation of rupees ten thousand for the period the Complainant was deprived of watching the said two channels.
3. The complaint was presented on 31/10/2013 and admitted on 14/11/2013. Notice was issued to the Opposite Party.
4. The Opposite Party was served with the copy of the complaint and were directed to file their written version within thirty days from the receipt of
the same. The Opposite Party did not file their written version within time and the same was therefore discarded and not taken on record.
5. The issue arising for our consideration is -
Whether by not making available as 'add on' channels the Neo Sports and Neo Prime to the connection of the Complainant the Opposite Party has been guilty of deficiency of service?
6. From the pleadings and the affidavit in evidence the Complainant claimed that he had purchased a Set Top Box connection for his TV from the Opposite Party.
…5/-
7. The Complainant also submitted that he in fact enjoyed viewing badminton events from the various sports channels offered by the Opposite Party. It is his case that it was represented to him by the Opposite Party that in case any of the channels which the subscriber desired to avail of did not form part of the channel pack he would have to subscribe them as add-ons.
8. On noticing that he could not view two sports channels on Tata Sky namely Neo Sports and Neo Prime on the connection of the Opposite Party, which he had noticed were aired in the last week of September
2013. He informed them that he wished to subscribe to the said two channels which were not part of his current pack and desired to add them in order to view them and requested they be added to his current pack at the earliest.
9. The Opposite Party immediately replied notifying the Complainant that the said two channels had been removed and replaced with two other channels. He was greatly disappointed when the Opposite Party failed and neglected to make the same available to him.
10. From the complaint it is clear that the two channels Neo Sport and Neo Prime did not form part of the pack which the complainant had paid for and subscribed too.
11. It is seen from the email addressed to the Complainant that the two channels were aired by Tata Sky which however they chose to take off and get substituted.
12. It is not the case of the Complainant that the same formed part of his current pack or was subscribed to by him as 'add on' channels, towards which he had paid an extra amount.
13. It is also not his case that the same were removed after he bought the set top box and subscribed for the pack he had chosen. Neither has he relied
…8/-
on any receipt to show as to when he had obtained the connection from the Opposite Party or the manual to show if the sports channels were part of the package and had been arbitrarily removed without any intimation, or under what terms any channels could be removed by the provider.
14. From the e-mail reply dated 26.10.2013 it is seen that the Opposite Party took off the channels from the Platform of Tata Sky and did not make them available to the subscriber despite his having demanded the same and inspite of the fact that the Opposite Party had represented that they would make available any channels which were not part of the pack but on additional payment as alleged by him.
15. The Complainant has not brought on record any agreement entered into by the Complainant with the Opposite Party in order to establish that the Complainant and the Opposite Party had agreed that on the demand of the ‘add on’ the Opposite Party would have to irrespective of any other fact make the said channels available to him except for the fact that they were entitled to make him pay towards such 'add on' channels.
16. Therefore in view of the fact that the Complainant has not placed on record any document establishing such an agreement, the Complainant has failed to prove the same. He has also not brought on record any document as to what the package of the channels which he had availed of from the Opposite Party and what were the terms and conditions for availing of channels (add on) which did not form part of the package.
17. He has also not brought on record any document to show that he was entitled to request for any channel and the Opposite Party was duty bound to oblige him upon payments whether agreed upon or to be
agreed upon. Thus the Complainant has failed to prove that the Opposite Party was duty bound to make available the channels
…7/-
requested by him irrespective of whether the same were available with them or not.
In the circumstances the complaint is dismissed.
