Delhi

North

CC/248/2012

YOGESH KANT BHAGERIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. TATA SKY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

O R D E R

SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant purchased Multy TV DTH connections (Grand Sports Pack) for the three TV sets along with Two Add-On Connections from OP on 10.6.2012 and made the payment for the same through HDFC Credit card.  It is alleged that on 10.6.2012 the representative of OP visited the house of the complainant and the complainant noticed that the LNB was not in sealed packed and which was looked to be an old part.  It is alleged that the representative of OP took out the LNB and assured that new LNB will be replaced by next day morning with sealed packed box.   It is alleged that after installation the LBN, he did not give any document or any hand book etc. of Tata Sky.  It is alleged that on 13.6.2012 the complainant watched on TV Screen an illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.500/- to be paid within 3 days, otherwise connection shall be deactivated.  It is stated that on enquiry the complainant was informed that total length of 146 meter cable was used for installing the aforesaid connections and Rs.500/- is the extra charges for the same.  It is alleged that the representative of the OP admitted the consumption of the cable as 89 meters for the aforesaid connections but did not give any satisfactory reply for the illegal demand of Rs.500/-.  It is alleged that the complainant has sent the complaint to the OP through e-mails against the illegal demand of Rs.500/- and for installing the New LNB but no action was taken by the OP.  It is alleged that the OP raised an illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.125/- as visiting fee on 21.6.2012(during guarantee period). It is alleged that on 15.7.2012, an extra dish was installed and the connection of unclear picture was connected with the new dish and other two connections became unclear. It is alleged that the complainant made several requests and complaints but OP has not taken care to solve the problem of unclear picture in other two Tata Sky connections but on the other hand arbitrarily and unlawfully deactivated the connections instead of resolving the problems.  It is alleged that due to the aforesaid unwarranted actions and deficient services of OP, the complainant suffered unnecessary harassment, mental torture and agony.   On these facts complainant filed the complaint on 30.8.2012 praying that OPs be directed to  pay for a sum of Rs.3408/- cost of three DTH connections plus Rs.500/- illegally charged for extra cable and Rs.1,00,000/- towards inconvenience, mental torture and harassment and also Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

2.     OP appeared and filed its written statement.  In its written statement OP has not disputed that complainant purchased Multy TV DTH connections (Grand Sports Pack) for the three TV sets along with Two Add-on Connections from OP on 10.6.2012 and made the payment for the same through HDFC Credit card.  It is stated that the service engineer of OP visited the house of the complainant on the same day i.e. 10.6.2012 and installed all three connections and gave a demo of the services of the OP to the entire satisfaction of the complainant regarding the perfect working of the DTH services of the OP and there was no complaint by the complainant at the time of installation of the connection.  It is submitted that the services of the OP are pre-paid services for which the customers are required to recharge and maintain a minimum account balance in his/her account to continue obtaining the services of OP and all the payments with respect to the services of OP are required to be done through this method only.  It is also stated that the subscription contract defines the relationship between the complainant(subscriber) and the OP. It is denied that one LNB installed at the residence of the complainant was old, however, it is submitted that as the complainant was having a picture clarity issue and had complained to the helpline of the OP and in pursuance of this the OP had replaced one of LNBs on the very same day to resolve picture clarity issue.  It is denied that the OP wrongly charged Rs.500/- towards extra wire used for installation.  It is submitted that the offer made by the OP across the country is only limited to standard installation wherein 10 meter cable length is provide for one connection and OP during the installation more than 40 meters wire was used for the installation and the same was in the knowledge of the complainant.  It is also denied that the complainant was charged Rs.125/- on 21.6.2012 as visiting charges.  It is submitted that the account statement of the complainant for the month of June 2012 it is clear that an amount of Rs.125/- was deducted on 20.6.2012 towards visiting charges.  It is also denied that the complainant and his family have suffered any mental harassment, torture and other problem since the installation.  It is submitted that all the complaints of the complainant were duly and promptly attended to and no reliable evidence has been produced by the complainant in support of his case in this regard.  Therefore, as there was no deficiency of service on the part of the OP, complainant is not entitled for any relief.  The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence reiterating all the facts made in the complaint.  On the other hand Mr. Sanjeev Ahuja, Sr. Dy. General Counsel and Constituted Attorney of OP has filed affidavit alongwith documents in support of its case.  We have considered the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on record.  

4.     The complainant has alleged that a sum of Rs.500/- was charged from him illegally and picture in one of the TV connection was not clear.  The complainant has filed various e-mails sent to the OP which shows that there were some problems regarding one of the TV Screen clarity and  e-mails shows that the complainant has agitated charges of Rs.500/-for the alleged extra cable used for connection.  The complainant in his complaint has stated that the length of the cable used for all the three connections was only 84 meters .  The complainant has also alleged that the demand of Rs.500/- for extra cable was illegal. 

5.     It is admitted by the OP that the complainant on 10.6.2012 purchased Multy TV DTH connections for the three sets and made payment for the same through HDFC Credit card and the complainant was allotted Subscriber ID No.108489130.  It has been stated by the OP that installation of all three connections was completed on 10.6.2012 itself and a Demo of the services was given to the entire satisfaction of the complainant.  The OP has also contended that a sum of Rs.500/- towards extra cable used was rightly charged.  It is also submitted that offer made by the OP all across is only limited to standard installation wherein 10 meter cable length is provided for one connection.  The case of the OP is that in the present case the cable wire used during the installation was  more than 40 meters and the same was in the knowledge of the complainant.  It has also been stated that it was clearly explained to the complainant that the extra wire used in installation shall be charged from the complainant.  The OP has also placed on record subscription copy of installation work order in which it has been specifically stated that the subscriber will be charged for all installations as per prevailing rate schedule and such charges will be debited from the subscriber’s account. It has also been stipulated in the conditions that all the services will be on pre-paid basis unless/otherwise informed by the OP.  Further it is also one of the terms and condition which authorized OP automatically charge the amount for the subscription fee  and for any other payment or charges incurred by the subscriber on the due date for such amount.  We have also perused the subscriber statement of amount filed as Ex.RW-1D which shows that a sum of Rs.125/- was charged as service visit on 20-6-2012 but the same was credit back on 22.6.2012.  Since the complainant himself had admitted that about 84  meters of cable was used for installation of three connections, therefore charges made by the OP was justified and no illegality has occurred.  As far as the question of clarity of screen in one of the TV connection is concerned the complaint has not filed any photographs or expert report in this regard.  The oral testimony of the complainant has been controverted orally by the OP.  Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has not proved any deficiency in service in this regard. 

6.     In view of the above discussions and the materials/documents scrutinized and perused by us  we find that there was no deficiency in services on the part of the OP as such the complaint is dismissed.  Ordered accordingly.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

  Announced on this 10^th day of February, 2016.        

 

 

(K.S. MOHI)                   (SUBHASH GUPTA)                     (SHAHINA)

   President                            Member                                   Member