BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 14th August 2009
COMPLAINT NO.12/2009
(Admitted on 03.02.2009)
PRESENT:
1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Mr.Giridhar B. Kamath,
So. L.Bhaskar Kamath,
Aged 31 years,
Residing at Vignesh,
1st Floor, J.B. Lobo Road,
Near Hegde Stores,
Kodical, Mangalore 6. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt.Suma R. Nayak)
VERSUS
1. Ms. Casmin Electronics,
Devaki Nandana Building,
D.No.7.76.7, B 5th Cross,
Near SNDP, Kodical,
Mangalore.
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1:Sri.K.S. Nambiar).
2. M/s. Omega Services,
Smrithi Nivas,
Guruprasad Lane,
Gourigudda, Kankanady,
Mangalore – 2.
3. M/s.Balaji Distributors,
D.No.5-9-957(2),
New Ganesh Mahal,
Alake, Mangalore – 3.
4. Reliance Big T.V.,
Business Headquarters, 4th Floor,
Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,
NAVI Mumbai – 400 710,
Maharashtra. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Opposite Party No.2 to 4: Exparte).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
It is submitted that the Complainant purchased the Reliance Big TV connection along with its kits and accessories from the Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2008 and paid Rs.2,190/-. The Opposite Party No.1 explained to the Complainant that he would get 12 months free south delight pack from the date of activation of the instrument as per Ex C2 which is the brochure of big TV.
It is contended that the instrument was installed in the month of September 2008 and only till November 2008 the Complainant was able to view all the channels so promised under Smart South 1990 Offer. The Complainant lodged a complaint regarding the non-availability of the channels as promised with the toll free number of the Opposite Party bearing No.1800-200-9001. That the Opposite Parties rectified the mistake after a week. Again on 21.11.2008 there was interruption in the signal and once again the Complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.80952338. On 26.11.2008 the Complainant received a reply from the Opposite Party stating that he is required to recharge the currency by paying Rs.700/-. It is submitted that the Complainant is entitled to one year viewing of South Delight Pack containing 152 channels as per the Smart South 1990 Offer. There is no requirement of recharging currency by paying an additional Rs.700/-. It is submitted that the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties did not co-operate with the Complainant and thereafter issued a legal notice dated 2.12.2008, only the Opposite Party No.1 sent a reply and rest of the Opposite Parties not sent reply. It is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and hence the above complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,190/- being the bill amount with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from 12.9.2008 till the date of payment and also claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel and rest of the Opposite Parties despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Therefore we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2 to 4. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 to 3.
The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Complainant has purchased the above big TV receiver, activation kit worth Rs.1,490/- and recharge voucher worth Rs.700/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and the same has been delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant has handed over the same to the Opposite Party No.2 who is doing the installation and service work of the Opposite Party No.4. The amount collected by the Opposite Party No.1 does not include the dish TV antenna system. The dish TV antenna is being directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 to the Opposite Party No.2. The installation and service work was done by the Opposite Party No.2.
It is submitted that once the materials are delivered to the customer, the problems if any that occurs thereafter, it is only the 2nd and 4th Opposite Parties who are liable to rectify the same and contended that there is no deficiency in service whatsoever as alleged by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the dish TV antenna purchased by him proved to be defective and the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Giridhar B. Kamath (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.K.T.Josy (RW1), Proprietor of Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the instant case, the facts which are not in dispute are that the Complainant had purchased the Reliance Big TV connection along with its kits and accessories from the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized person for installation and Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized distributor and Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturer of the said Reliance Big TV system. The above instrument was purchased on 12.9.2008 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued cash memo bearing No.658 for a sum of Rs.2,190/- (as per Ex C1). It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party No.1 collected the amount in respect of the Dish TV Antenna system and the south side regional package popularly known as “Smart South 1990 Offer” at the rate of Rs.1,990/- and a sum of Rs.200/- towards two sports channels which has been referred in the said bill. The smart 1990 offer was inclusive of the kit costing Rs.1,490/-. It is also not in dispute that the set top box along with GSK was provided to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 and the dish antenna and other accessories were provided by the Opposite Party No.2. It is also not in dispute that Opposite Parties had given the authorized offers by printing brochures with regard to the Big TV connections, which was made available to the Complainant through Opposite Party No.3. Further it is not disputed that as per the brochure published by the Opposite Party No.4 that the Complainant was to get 12 months free south delight pack from the date of activation of the instrument. The above said antenna was installed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the month of September 2008.
Now the point in dispute is that, the Complainant was not able to view the authorized channels which were promised in the brochure published by the Opposite Party No.4. The trouble started in the month of November 2008 when the Complainant was not receiving the signals of the channels and there was interruption in the telecast and the Complainant lodged the complaint. That the Opposite Parties rectified the mistake after a week. Subsequently thereafter till 21.11.2008 there was no interruption. On 21.11.2008 once again there was an interruption the Complainant lodged a complaint but the Opposite Parties not responded and thereafter the Complainant received a reply stating that he is required to recharge the currency as the currency had expired and he is required to pay Rs.700/-. The Complainant contended that the Complainant had paid Rs.1,990/- for the smart south pack which was for a period of one year and only one month she had successfully used but thereafter it has been interrupted and she contended that she is not able to view the channels hence this complaint.
The Opposite Party No.2, 3 and 4 inpsite of receiving version notice by RPAD not appeared nor contradicted the evidence of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the FORA and stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible. The Complainant has purchased the big TV receiver, activation kit worth Rs.1,490/- and recharge voucher worth Rs.700/- from this Opposite Party and the dish TV antenna is being directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 to the Opposite Party No.2 and the installation service work was done by the Opposite Party No.2. It is contended that once the materials are delivered to the customer and thereafter the said customer hands over the materials to the installing and servicing agent, the problems if any it is only the 2nd and 4th Opposite Parties who are liable to rectify the same and contended that there is no deficiency in service.
It is significant to note that except the above it is not denied that the dish TV antenna delivered by the Opposite Parties are in working condition. It is clearly admitted that the dish TV antenna purchased by the Complainant is not working condition and she cannot view the channels. From the undisputed fact as well as the documents produced by the Complainant especially the Ex C2 i.e., the brochure issued by the Opposite Party No.4 guaranteed to the customers that the digital TV service guaranteed with the offer that customer can choice more than 200 channels, 3 months free unlimited access to exclusive big Cinema monthly subscription packs, 20 cinema channels, 120 movies, new movies every 15 days, sensation audio entertainment on 10 audio channels, free regional pack along with big TV customers provided exclusive offers in South India. The Smart South 1990 Offer at Rs.1,990/-which includes GSK of Rs.1,490/- plus recharge coupon vouchers and the customer will get 12 months free south delight pack. Since it is admitted that the Complainant could watch the channels only for a period of two months and till now she could not able to view the channels inspite of lodging complaint with the Opposite Parties. The Ex C1 to C5 which clearly go to show that the Complainant is entitled to receive 152 channels for a period of a year i.e., from September 2008 to September 2009. Apart from the above it is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 inspite of receiving notice not appeared before the FORA nor contested the case till this date. The entire documents as well as evidence were not rebutted hence it requires no further proof.
Taking into overall consideration the facts which proved that the Complainant was not able to view the channels as promised by the Opposite Parties till this date amounts to deficiency. Since it is admitted that the dish TV antenna is directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 i.e., the manufacturer to the Opposite Party No.2 it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.4 and 2 should see the problem in the dish TV antenna and rectify the same by giving proper service but in the instant case the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.4 is miserably failed to give a proper service to the Complainant. Hence Opposite Party No.2 and 4 are responsible for the above deficiency.
By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that the Complainant lodged the complaint, inspite of that the Opposite Parties not responded and not rectified the problems faced by the Complainant hence it is proved that the dish TV antenna supplied by the Opposite Parties has some problem and not in working condition. Under such circumstances directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects will not meet the ends of justice since they have not responded the complaint of the Complainant. Therefore, we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.2 and 4 to refund Rs.2,190/- by taking back the big TV antenna system along with accessories from the Complainant and further Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused by the Opposite Parties. And Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Since there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.2 and 4 are hereby directed to refund Rs.2,190/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred and ninety only) by taking back the big TV antenna system along with accessories from the Complainant. And further Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses to the Complainant. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 14th day of August 2009.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)
APPENDIX
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr.Giridhar B. Kamath – Complainant.
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 12.09.2008: Original cash memo issued by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C2 – : Original brochure of Big T.V.
Ex C3 – 02.12.2008: Copy of the legal notice issued to the Opposite Parties.
Ex C4 – : Original acknowledgement cards for receipt of the legal notice by the Opposite Parties (3 in numbers)
Ex C5 – 06.12.2008: Reply notice issued by the Opposite Party No.1.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1:
RW1 – Sri.K.T.Josy, Proprietor of Opposite Party No.1.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
- Nil -
Dated:14.08.2009 PRESIDENT
