District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of December, 2010
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 01/07/2010
CC. No.86/2010
Daveed Poulose
S/o. Daveed,
Pulikkakunnel veedu,
Ambittan Tharissu,
Kizhakkenchery Village
Alathur Taluk,
Palakkad. - Complainant
Vs
Nandakumar
Technoworld Home Needs,
Electronic Sale & Service,
Indira Priyadarsini Bus Stand,
Vadakkenchery, Alathur Taluk
Palakkad. - Opposite party
(By Adv.M.Raveendran)
O R D E R
By Smt.BHANUMATHI.A.K, MEMBER
Complaint is as follows:
The complainant is an 69 years aged person who purchased a TV receiver from the opposite party with the intention to watch World Cup Football. At the time of purchasing the complainant expressed his desire to watch world cup football. The opposite party made the complainant believe that this dish TV receiver enables to get 120 channels and the complainant can very well watch the football game. The receiver costs Rs.1,800/-. But the complainant purchased the receiver for an amount Rs.1,700/- as he is not needed the dish. When the complainant wanted the cash bill the opposite party gave a bundle of booklet and user guide.
After fitting the dish receiver the complainant noticed that the receiver is not functioning properly. Most of the channels are of only number and name. Some channels have no sound. Some others have no display. Functioning stops at intervals some times some signals are visible as ‘unavailable’. The complainant returned the receiver. So the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships. So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,200/- to the complainant.
Opposite party filed version denying all the contentions of the complainant. On 24/06/2010 the complainant approached the opposite party and wanted a dish TV by which he wanted to see world cup football game. Opposite party suggested South Silver Pack scheme of dish TVZ costs Rs.1,690/-. The complainant agreed and informed that he will give its cost and ID proof after fitting of the dish TV. So the opposite party went to complainant’s house and fitted the dish TV but the complainant did not give money to the opposite party. Complainant informed that he will give money at the opposite party’s shop. Opposite party says that disadvantages suffered by the complainant because of the unawareness of the operation system of the dish TV. The complainant wanted to get more channels than the said plan. But this is not under the control of opposite party. To get more channels the complainant has to pay additional amount. When the complainant informed the dish TV is not working properly the opposite party checked the same and found that the complainant changed the position of the dish and made bent in the receiver knob. Opposite party says that the complainant filed this complaint to escape from the liability. So the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of opposite party.
Both parties filed affidavits. Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?
The case of the complainant is that with the intention to watch world cup football game he purchased a dish TV receiver from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,700/-. At the time of purchasing itself the opposite party assured that this South Silver Pack Scheme would enable the complainant to watch football game. But the complainant suffered much difficulties as the dish TV is not functioning properly. The complainant got only 35 channels and they are also not in a position to watch. Some times no sound, some times no display etc. It is evident from Ext.B1 document that there was a such plan “South Silver Pack” and enjoy 154+ channels for an amount of Rs.1,690/- for 5 months. So the complainant gave back the receiver to opposite party and wanted the cost of the receiver. But the opposite party says without giving money they installed the dish TV. But the complainant did not give any amount to that effect. But both parties did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove their contention. The version of the opposite party seems unbelievable as no one will ready to give the article and install the same without paying the cost. Due to the non-functioning of the dish TV the 69 aged complainant suffered much and he lost the chance of entertainment. Being an old man opposite party is bound to solve the grievance regarding dish TV. This can be considered as the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result, we allow the complaint. Opposite party is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,700/- (Rupees One thousand and seven hundred only) and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of December, 2010
Sd/-
Smt.Seena.H,
President
Sd/- Smt.Preetha.G.Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
Appendix
Witnesses examined on the side of complainants
Nil
Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of complainants
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of user guide
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1 - Brochure
