IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                                  Dated this, the  8^th day of  September  2009

CC.237/2006

T.V.Sureshan,

Valiya Paramba,

Kodakkad.P.O.,                                                          Complainant

Kasaragod Dist.

(Rep.by Adv.P.P.Sandeep Kumar)

1.M/s.National Radio Electronics Co.

  Branch  Main Road,                                                   Opposite parties

  Payyannur.

2. M/s.Ntional Radio Electronics Co.

  Head Office,

  Taliparamba

O R D E R

Sri.K.P.Preethakumari, Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3300/- the price of Dish TV antina and other charges with interest, compensation and cost.

            The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a dish TV antina from 1^st opposite party as attracted by the advertisement in Mathrubhumi daily on 22.8.06 and as per the representation of 1^st opposite party that it was a good quality. At the time of purchase 1^st opposite party assured the complainant that they will install the above system on very next day of purchase and hence received Rs.200/- as installation charge. But the opposite party did not installed the dish TV antina even on repeated demand made by the complainant and has not supplied the accessories for installation of dish TV antina. Even though free activation is offered in the advertisement the opposite party has received Rs.500/- for activating the system. The complainant now realised that  the opposite party supplied low quality Dish TV antina after made believe the complainant that it is the original and having good quality. Complainant had issued a lawyer notice dt.4.9.06, even though they received the same they neither replied it nor installed the system. Hence this complaint.

            On receiving notice from the Forum, opposite parties appeared and filed version contending that the complainant is not a consumer since there is no consumer dispute between he parties. The opposite parties admit that they are the authorized dealer of Dish TV and also made advertisement in Malayalam dailies. They further admit that the complainant has purchased Dish TV antinna on 26.8.06. The next day of the purchase, a technician from the opposite party went to the complainant’s house at Cheruvathur and installed the Dish TV antina with all its accessories and activated it and found functioning correctly. The offer of pre-activation was available only for a few days and there after the purchaser shall have to purchase the activation kit at different rate and install it; otherwise the purchaser is not able to view the picture. There is no offer of free activation to the Dish TV antenna set. The complainant mistook the word as free activation for the word Pre-activation. The opposite party supplied the viewing card worth Rs.500/- to the complainant. The complainant mistook the cost of Rs.500/- for viewing card as installation charge. The viewing card will show the particular period of activation and after the expiry of that period, he has to buy the activation card. But instead of doing so, he filed the complaint. They supplied only good quality and guaranteed products of reputed companies. So there is no truth or bonafidies on the part of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Upon the above averments, the following issues are raised   for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whther there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

 3. Whether the complainant is entitle to any remedy as prayed for?

4. Relief and cost.

            The evidence in this case consist of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ets.A1 to A8

IssueNo.1

The opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite party since there is no consumer dispute between the parties. But they admitted that the complainant has purchased a dish TV antenna on 26.8.06.Ext.A1 is the bill of the above purchase. According to Consumer protection act, as per section 2(1) (d) a consumer means any person who buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid. As per Ext.A2 the complainant has paid consideration and bought the Dish TV antenna from the 1^st opposite party and hence there exist a consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party and hence the complainant is a consumer and the issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2 to4

            As per Ext.A1 advertisement the value of the Dish TV is Rs.3190/- which includes the value of dish antenna, rent of the set top box for 5 years including taxes and 3 months subscription fee for 80 channels. It is further stated in the advertisement that the purchaser has to give Rs.200/ - as installation charge and octroy and the offer is valid to all purchase unto 30^th September 2006.But as per Ext.a2, the purchase invoice dt.28.8.06 the value of dish TV antenna is Rs.2311.11 and added Rs.288.89 as vat and Rs.700/- as installation and activation charges. The total value shown in Ext.A2 is Rs.3, 300/-. According to the complainant, the opposite party has supplied low quality dish to antenna system and  had not installed and activated the dish  TV antenna even though the  opposite party has received Rs.700/- as  installation and activation charges. Besides, even though the opposite parties offered pre-activation they have received Rs.500/- from the complainant as activation charge. The reason stated by the complainant for saying that the dish TV system is low quality is due to the lack of clarity of the picture and the value shown for the dish TV system is Rs.2600/- including vat, which is less than the value shown in the advertisement. The complainant has not taken out a commission to report the above condition of the antenna that the clarity of the picture is lacking and has not produced any other evidence. So the complainant has miserably failed to prove that the opposite party had issued low quality dish antenna. The other contention of the complainant is that the opposite party has not approached the complainant for installing the dish TV antenna even though he has received the installation charge. But admitted that it was installed after 26.11.06. But the opposite party contended that they had installed the antenna on the very next day of its purchase itself. But they have neither produced any document to prove the above contention nor examined any witness. So from the non-production of evidence it can be inferred that the opposite party has installed the antenna only after 26.11.06. So there is deficiency on the part of opposite party in installing the dish TV antenna.

            The further case of the complainant is that they received Rs.500/- as activation charge, even though they offered pre-activation. From Ext.A2, it is clearly seen that the opposite party has received Rs.500/- as installation charge. But the opposite party admitted in the version that the offer of pre-activation was available only a few days. Along with Ext.A8 Booklet, a pre-activation viewing card is enclosed with a direction to enjoy free preview of all channels for first 7 days. The opposite party offered free subscription of 80 channels for 3 months. More over Ext.A7 shows that the complainant has to renew on 16.11.06 onwards. Moreover Ext.A1 is keeping mum regarding the activation charge, even though, it is specifically stated that the purchaser has to pay Rs.200/- as installation charge. The opposite party had specifically stated regarding all payments, which the complainant is bound to pay. But no where the opposite party stated that, the complainant is bound to pay the activation charge, specifically. So the complainant has no liability to pay the activation charge for 3 months. So the opposite party has shown unfair trade practice, by receiving Rs.500/- as activation charge. So the opposite parties are liable for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice shown by them. The 1^st opposite party is liable to pay back Rs.500/- received as activation charge. The complainant has not produced both oral and documentary evidence to show that the dish TV antenna is not in working condition. Form the above discussion we award the compensation as Rs.1000/- and Rs/500/- as cost of this proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to return back Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) along with Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is entitled to take steps for executing the same as per the provisions of Consumer protection act.

                Sd/-                              Sd/-                                         Sd/-                       

            President                      Member                       Member

            APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.News paper

A2.Invoice  issued by OP 1

A3.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OPs

A4 to A6.Postal receipts and AD cards

A7.Dish TV statement

A8.Booklet with agreement

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties: Nil

                                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                            Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur