Haryana

Sonipat

CC/21/2015

M.S. KAUSHIKA S/O PERMA NAND KAUSHIKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

NODAL OFFICER HARYANA AND DELHI TATASKY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M.S. KAUSHIKA

15 Oct 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.       

 

                                Complaint No.21 of 21.01.2015.

                                New  Case No.330 of 08.09.2015                                       Date of order:23.10.2015

 

M.S. Kaushika son of late Shri Perma Nand Kaushika, r/o Neelachal, Shambhu Dayal Mandir Marg, Sonepat.

..Complainant

 

                            Versus

 

Nodal Officer, Haryana and Delhi, Tata Sky Ltd., Regd. Office, 3^rd Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (Bombay Dyeing) Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli Mumbai-400025.

 

..Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

           Shri Vinay Chhikara, Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

         First of all, we would like to mention here that previously the present complaint was decided and allowed ex-parte by this Forum vide order dated 17.03.2015 and following order was passed:-

         “We hereby direct the respondent not to charge Rs.170/-  for sending service engineer, to refund Rs.1100/- to the complainant which were charged as cost of HD STB. The respondent is further directed to set their frequency and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.ten thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment & humiliation and under the head of litigation charges”.

          Thereafter, the respondent preferred First Appeal no.417 of 2015, Instituted on 05.05.2015, decided on 31.07.2015 by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, vide which, the appeal of the respondent was accepted and order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the Forum was set-aside and the case was remanded back to this Forum with the direction to dispose of the complaint expeditiously within three months.

2.        The complainant and respondent appeared before this Forum on 08.09.2015 in compliance of the order dated 31.07.2015 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula and opportunities were given to the respondent for filing their reply and evidence in support of their case.

3.        The facts of the case as per the complainant are that he is having Tata Sky connection vide Customer ID No.1010711065 and has an annual service agreement for relay of one of the standard packages and the said package was renewed for one year w.e.f. 29.9.2014 to 28.9.2015. But after renewal, channels no.475, 476, 507 and 510 were disrupted.  A complaint was lodged online on 25.11.2014, 30.11.2014, 15.12.2014 and 3.1.2015,  but after great persuation, it was told that service charges of Rs.170/- for sending an engineer for restoration of channels would have to be paid by the complainant.  This is a clear attempt of duping and cheating and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

4.       The respondent in their reply has submitted that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  DTH service is provided as per terms and conditions contained in the subscription contract. The complainant had opted for the following packages to be active on his account i.e. Annual Dhamaal Pack Mix Pack (alongwith Hindi and Punjabi Regional Free Packs as add on) and Annual English News Pack.  The complainant had renewed his subscription for annual dhamaal mix pack and annual English news pack on 29.9.2014 which is valid till 28.9.2015.  The respondent received an e-mail from the complainant on 25.11.2014 that there was signal disruption in channel no.475, 476, 477 and 507 and except this, no e-mail was ever received by the respondent.  Since the complainant’s annual service commitment had expired on 18.10.2014, service charges of Rs.170/- were liable to be charged for a service visit by the technical engineer. This was completely as per the terms and conditions of the subscription contract. On 18.10.2013, the complainant informed the respondent’s representative that he wanted an upgradation of his existing set top  box to the High Definition Set Top Box as he was under the process of purchasing LCD HD Television. The respondent does not have a refund/exchange policy with respect to its hardware and thus, just because the complainant later on has misgivings about the money spent on the upgradation to HD STB, he cannot now demand that the respondent  return his old STB.   HD Channels were provided to the complainant free of cost in the first month from 19.10.2013 till 19.11.2013 under the scheme offered by the respondent and the complainant was not charged Rs.100/- for the same.  The complainant has not suffered any loss in any manner.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

6.        Complainant has submitted that he is having Tata Sky connection vide Customer ID No.1010711065 and has an annual service agreement for relay of one of the standard packages and the said package was renewed for one year w.e.f. 29.9.2014 to 28.9.2015. But after renewal, channels no.475, 476, 507 and 510 were disrupted.  A complaint was lodged online on 25.11.2014, 30.11.2014, 15.12.2014 and 3.1.2015,  but after great persuation, it was told that service charges of Rs.170/- for sending an engineer for restoration of channels would have to be paid by the complainant.  When there wass no improvement in the picture quality, the engineer of the respondent came for installation and told that to receive the quality, the complainant has to replace his existing digital TV with HD TV.  But even after installation of HD STB, it has become a junk for him and after paying about Rs.1100/-, the complainant is not benefitted in any sense. This is a clear attempt of duping and cheating and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          The complainant in his rejoinder has submitted that Mangesh Nai and Swapna of Consumer Care team has sent the e-mail dated 18.9.2014 and 20.9.2014 regretting their service deficiency.  The service remained disrupted for about 40 days w.e.f. 25.11.2014 to 3.1.2015.  The respondent accepted the e-mails of the complainant, but remain in a denial mode.  TRAI has issued the regulations for Quality of service related issues for Direct to Home Broadcasting. It is mandatory on the part of a service provider to put in a reliable Addressable system and provide service free of cost for repair, maintenance of signal and equipments.  It was only on 18/19.10.2013 (date of installation of HD STB) the technician who came to install it, it was told by him that there was no improvement of the quality of picture or sound and he asked the complainant to buy LCD TV set. It is wrongly alleged by the respondent that the complainant was in process of purchasing LCD TV.  Further free of cost provision for one month and paying HD access fee has no meaning.   Thus, the complainant has prayed to increase the penalty for deficiency in service on the part of the respondent, to direct the respondent to remove the HD STB and to install the Digital STB which was in use earlier and to return the amount of Rs.1100/- as cost of the HD STB.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  DTH service is provided as per terms and conditions contained in the subscription contract. The complainant had opted for the following packages to be active on his account i.e. Annual Dhamaal Pack Mix Pack (alongwith Hindi and Punjabi Regional Free Packs as add on) and Annual English News Pack.  The complainant had renewed his subscription for annual dhamaal mix pack and annual English news pack on 29.9.2014 which is valid till 28.9.2015.  The respondent received an e-mail from the complainant on 25.11.2014 that there was signal disruption in channel no.475, 476, 477 and 507 and except this, no e-mail was ever received by the respondent.  Since the complainant’s annual service commitment had expired on 18.10.2014, service charges of Rs.170/- were liable to be charged for a service visit by the technical engineer. This was completely as per the terms and conditions of the subscription contract. On 18.10.2013, the complainant informed the respondent’s representative that he wanted an upgradation of his existing set top  box to the High Definition Set Top Box as he was under the process of purchasing LCD HD Television. The respondent does not have a refund/exchange policy with respect to its hardware and thus, just because the complainant later on has misgivings about the money spent on the upgradation to HD STB, he cannot now demand that the respondent  return his old STB.   HD Channels were provided to the complainant free of cost in the first month from 19.10.2013 till 19.11.2013 under the scheme offered by the respondent and the complainant was not charged Rs.100/- for the same.  The complainant has not suffered any loss in any manner.  There is also no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          But we find no force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the respondent since from the material available on the case file, it is established that there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/- (Rs.fifteen thousands) for rendering deficient services, for harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the

present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:23.10.2015