1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the user of TATA SKY (Dish TV Connection) belongs to OP No.1 and due to some reasons he could not use the connection for 3 months.  It is submitted that on 12.2.2015 customer care of OP.1 contacted the complainant over phone and told about an offer launched by OP.1 which is Rs.1330/- as one year subscription.  In the meanwhile, the complainant had already forgotten his ID number and hence went through his setup box which displayed ID No.1097881427 and accordingly he recharged Rs.1330/- through OP No.2.  It is further submitted that after such recharge the complainant could see that no such amount has been credited to his account and hence contacted customer care who informed that the A/c No. 1097881427 to which the amount is credited is in the name of A. Bogesh.  It is also further submitted that the complainant lodged a complaint with OP.1 who after 7 days informed the complainant that they have returned the amount and credited to the Distributor’s ID number (OP.3) but till date neither the Ops restored the connection nor refunded the amount to the complainant.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to restore the connection and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant had taken a Tata Sky connection on 15.1.2013 under ID No.1098493560 and contacted the OP on 13.2.2016 and informed that he had recharged his Tata Sky subscription account for an amount of Rs.1330/- through Paytm but the said amount is not reflecting in his accounts.  On going through the complaint the OP found that the complainant had charged the subscription account bearing No. 1097881427 instead of his own account No. 1098493560 and hence the OP reversed the said amount of Rs.1330/-on 15.2.2-16 and the OP.2 informed on 10.5.16 that the amount was refunded to the Paytm Wallet of the complainant on 22.2.16.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the OP.3 had recharged the setup box of the complainant on 13.2.16 for Rs.1330/- through OP No.2.  On 22.2.16 the OP.1 had refunded the amount to OP.2 and it was refunded to OP.3.  It is contended that the OP.2 having online payment activity is doing the above business and the terms and conditions as provided on the website have been agreed and accepted by the complainant while using the services of the OP.2.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     In spite of valid notice, the OP.3 neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence remained ex- parte.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  The Ops 1 & 2 also filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their respective cases.

5.                     In this case it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having TATA SKY Dish TV connection vides subscription A/c No.1098493560.  The case of the complainant is that he could not use the facilities for some time and on 12.2.2015 he received a call from Tata Sky customer care that if he pays a subscription of Rs.1330/-, the facility will continue for one year.  Being attracted with the offer, the complainant went through his setup box and got the ID No.1097881427.  Thereafter, he handed over Rs.1330/- to OP.3 who in turn deposited the said amount with OP.1 through OP.2 for ID No. 1097881427 but found that the said amount has not been credited in his accounts.  The complainant on further enquiry could know that the transaction has been made in the name of A. Bogesh with ID No.1097881427 and on contact with Tata Sky customer care, they assured to solve the problem within 7 days.  On further contact, the customer care told that the said amount has been refunded to the ID number of OP No.3, the distributor.  The OP.3 denies receipt of any amount from Tata Sky.

6.                     The OP.1 in his counter stated that the complainant had recharged the subscription to A/c. No.1097881427 whereas his A/c. was 1098493560.  Now it is to be seen as to how the complainant recharged the subscription to another account.  The complainant has filed 2 photos of his TV display connected with his setup box and in a message it displays that the subscription ID No.1097881427.  It is a fact that a subscriber cannot remember his ID and it can be had from the TV screen after connecting the setup box.  Hence the complainant has rightly recharged the subscription by going through the TV screen display.

7.                     Now it is to be seen how the ID number was changed.  In no way the complainant can change the ID No. allotted by OP.1.  The OP.1 has got all mechanism and server of Dish TV connection and he can only reply about the change the ID No. but unfortunately the OP.1 did not say anything in his counter about the change of ID number.  A customer is not supposed to recharge subscription on other accounts.  As revealed from the photos filed by the complainant, his TV displays ID No.1097881427 and as such he has recharged to the said ID number.  Thus the complainant has committed no mistake by recharging subscription to the said accounts.  Therefore, the OP.1 is solely responsible for the change of ID number of the complainant but not a single word about change of ID No. has been uttered by the OP.1.  The OP.1 says that the complainant recharged subscription to ID No.1097881427 instead of his own A/c. No.1098493560.  In view of photo of TV display, the complainant has rightly recharged in the a/c which is not of his own as found later on.  Hence for the change of ID number, the OP.1 is instrumental and he is liable for wrong recharge.  Thus the OP.1 committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and liable either to return the subscription amount or to reactivate the set up box of the complainant in his original ID. However, the OP.1 stated that he has returned the money to OP.2 and the OP.2 has returned the money to the ID of OP.3.

8.                     The OP.3 on contact says that he is yet to receive the money from the OP.2.  The OP.2 has filed Wallet History of balance from which it is found that he has returned the money on 22.2.2016 to the ID of the distributor, OP.3.  As such the OP.3 has received back the amount exactly what he had paid to OP.1 through OP.2 on behalf of the complainant.  The OP.3 has not participated in this proceeding in any manner but he has to refund Rs.1330/- to the complainant with due interest.

9.                     From the above facts, it was ascertained that the OP.1 is liable for change of ID No. of the complainant for which the complainant subscribed to a wrong ID.  For such a mistake of OP.1 the complainant could not see his TV and must have suffered some mental agony and as such is entitled for some compensation and costs for this litigation.  Considering his sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will be just and proper.  Further the OP.3 is to refund Rs.1330/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.2.2016 as he has already received the subscription amount back from OP.1 through OP.2.  However, we found no fault on the part of OP.2 as he has acted according to the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP.1 is directed to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards compensation and costs and the OP.3 is directed to refund Rs.1330/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 22.2.2016 towards subscription amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)