STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | 174 of 2014 |
Date of Institution | 05.05.2014 |
Date of Decision | 09.05.2014 |
Airtel Digital TV Bharti Telemedia Limited, United World Cyber Park, Tower-B, 8th Floor, Sector 39, Gurgaon-122001, now known as M/s Bharti Airtel Ltd. having its Regd. Office H-5/12, Qutab Ambience, Mehrauli Road, New Delhi – 110030 & having its Circle Office, Rajiv Gandhi Technological Park, I.T. Park, Chandigarh through its authorized signatory.
Versus
1. Nareshjit Singh Anand, resident of House No.3200, Ground Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.
…..Respondent/Complainant.
2. Super Sound, SCO No.104, Sector 35C, Chandigarh.
.…..Proforma Respondent/Opposite Party No.2.
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE:
Argued by:Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the appellant.
PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER
“12]
This order shall be complied with by the OPs with a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay a lumpsum penal amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.”
2. the complainant got Airtel Digital TV Connection through Opposite Party No.2, in the year 2010, for Rs.1,750/- (Annexure C-1) and Rs.3,840/- were charged for Mega Pack for one year, which also included 45 days free period i.e. for 410 days. It was stated that at the time of purchase, it was told by Opposite Party No.2, to the complainant that the payment for recharging could be made online or through purchase of recharge voucher, from any retailer of Airtel. It was further stated that, thereafter, Setup-box and antenna was fixed for receiving the signal. It was further stated that after 410 days on 15.7.2011, the complainant got recharged it again for a sum of Rs.3,840/- for Mega Advance Pack for one year, carrying a 45 days free i.e. total 410 days, which expired on 27.8.2012. It was further stated that, thereafter, the complainant again got recharged the said connection for 410 days on 27.8.2012 for a sum of Rs.3,585/- for Mega Pack, which was also carrying a free period of 45 days and it was to expire on 05.10.2013 (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that before the expiry of 410 days, Opposite Party No.1, stopped the service on 27.8.2013 at 10.30 AM, without any prior notice, and sent a message to get it recharged. It was further stated that the complainant called Opposite Parties No.1&2 and told them that his package was to expire on 05.10.2013, but the same was refused and it was insisted that the service would be resumed only after fresh recharge.
3.
4. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to refund the amount, charged for the period of 45 days, which was wrongly deducted, alongwith interest @18% per annum; pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment besides the other relief, which the Forum deemed fit.
5.admitted the sale of Airtel Digital TV Connection. It was stated that DTH connection of the complainant was activated on 15.7.2010, with an annual pack and Rs.3,850/- were charged from him, which included hardware, installation charges and rental costs. It was further stated that the package had a validity of one year, but did not have a free purview of 45 days, as 45 days free purview was not given to the new customer and, as per the Policy, it was provided to old customers recharging with annual pack. It was further stated that it was the option of the complainant to choose the benefit, which he opted also. It was further stated that the validity of the recharged connection was to expire on 27.8.20012 and the complainant again got recharged his account with Rs.3,600/- on 26.8.2012 and the amount of Rs.3,585/- was credited to his account on 27.8.2012 by the system. It was further stated that the complainant had viewed the services for the entire free purview of 45 days, before getting barred. It was further stated that the Economy Sports was added as per the request of the complainant.
6. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1 was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor did it indulge into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. the appeal, an application, for condonation of delay of 31 days, in filing the same (appeal), was moved, by the applicant/appellant, on the ground, that the copy of the order dated 07.02.2014 was received by it on 5.3.2014 and after going through the same, it was decided to challenge the same. It was stated that the file was thereafter referred to the legal branch, where it was decided to challenge the award on the point of compensation and, as such, delay of 31 days occurred in filing the appeal.
12.
13.
14. , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:-
“13. In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay.
Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”
15.
16.
9. This view neatly dovetails with the following authorities. In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), R. B. Ramlingam v. R. B. Bhavaneshwari, I (2009) CLT 188 (SC)= I (2009) SLT 701=2009 (2) Scale 108, Ram Lal and Others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., AIR 1962 Supreme Court 361, and Bikram Dass vs. Financial Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1221.
10. The latest view taken by the Supreme Court is in Civil Appeal No. 19896 of 2013 in the case “M/s Ambadi Enterprise Ltd. Vs. Smt. Rajalakshmi Subramanian”, decided on 12th July 2013 wherein SLP was dismissed upholding the judgment of this Commission, where the delay of 78 days was not condoned.
11. Again the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 33792 of 2013 in Chief Officer, Nagpur Housing & Area Development Board &Anr. V. Gopinath Kawadu Bhagat, decided on 19.11.2013, upholding the order of this Commission where 77 days delay was not condoned.
12. Above all, in Sanjay Sidgonda Patl Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., decided by the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal
13. Consequently, we find that the case is barred by time. However, we refrain from giving the view on the merits of this case.”
17.
18.
19. Admittedly, the respondent/complainant got installed the Airtel Digital TV Connection, of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 through Opposite Party No.2, in the year 2010 by paying a sum of Rs.1,750/- for activation kit and Rs.3,840/- as Mega Pack charges for one year and the same was being got recharged from time to time.
20. The case of the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, is that the package opted by the respondent/complainant was not having the free purview of 45 days, as it was not given to the new customers, however, the respondent/complainant enjoyed the services for the entire free purview period of 45 days before getting barred. On the other hand, the case of the respondent/complainant was that the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, before the expiry of 410 days, suddenly stopped the services without any prior notice, on 27.8.2013, which amounted to deficiency, in rendering service.
21.
“Grace Period” means the period of 3 (three) days or any other period specified by Airtel from time to time commencing from the time the account balance in the customer Account of any Customer Dropping below the Minimum Balance, where customer is allowed to avail the Service without any interruption and/or disconnection for giving an opportunity to recharge the Customer Account.
22. Rs.5,000/-, as mentioned in opening part of this order.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
Pronounced.
May 09, 2014.
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(DEV RAJ)
MEMBER
Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
Ad
STATE COMMISSION
(First Appeal No.174 of 2014)
Argued by:Sh. Sanjeev Pabbi, Advocate for the applicant/appellant.
Dated the 9th
ORDER
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT | (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER |
Ad7
