Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.05.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 90,000/-.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has filed this case on format only. After careful perusal of format as well as annexure – 2 it appears that the complainant has become consumer of the Airtel Digital DTH TV after paying Rs. 1,800/- on 20.03.2010 because there was a scheme known as economic pack in which the complainant was required to receive the service of DTH TV for four months. it is further case of the complainant that despite the aforesaid scheme his service was disconnected on 28.06.2010 while he was entitled to receive the service till 20.07.2010 as will appear from serial no. 20 of annexure – 1 which is customer relationship form.
Thereafter the complainant has filed complaint to customer care but no action was taken.
It appears from perusal of Para – 6 of Performa that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,750/- against which he was granted receipt and later on he has recharged after paying Rs. 50/-.
On behalf of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement cum written argument has been filed. In Para – 3 of written statement it has been stated by opposite parties that the complainant has paid only Rs. 1,750/- on 20.03.2010 and hence order was booked for three months economic pack and later on 22.03.2010 extra recharge of Rs. 50/- was done.
It is the case of the opposite parties that when complainant realized that four months economic pack is available then the complainant recharged with extra Rs. 50/-. In the meantime three months economic pack had already been activated and after completion of three months the line / service was suspended because package conversion was not possible.
The complainant has filed a written reply of the aforesaid written statement or written argument of opposite party no. 1 and 2 stating therein that he has taken Airtel Digital DTH TV from authorized dealer Aditya Vision on 19.03.2010 after depositing Rs. 1,750/- as will appear from annexure – 3.
He was informed by Aditya Vision that when Airtel engineer will visit at his house for installation of Airtel DTH Setup Box at that time if the complainant will pay Rs. 50/- to the Airtel engineer then the complainant will get one month extra as per scheme of Airtel and hence when on 20.03.2010 the technical engineer visited his house for installation then at that time the complainant has paid Rs. 50/- extra to Airtel engineer for getting one month extra scheme.
The complainant has also stated that after installation of DTH setup box the Airtel engineer handed over an agreement paper at serial – 20 of which it has clearly mentioned that “economic pack of four months”.
The facts asserted by the parties has been narrated above.
It is an admitted case of both sides that complainant has paid Rs. 1,750/- vide annexure – 3 and later Rs. 50/- by way of recharge and thereafter agreement paper was given to the complainant.
The aforesaid customer relationship form (agreement paper) has been annexed as annexure – 1 of complaint petition and at serial – 20 of which it is written “economic pack for four months” but it is an admitted case that service of the complainant was suspended after three months while the fact is that the opposite parties have already received Rs. 1,800/- as total and then agreement paper was supplied to the complainant by opposite parties.
It goes without saying that opposite parties are bound to act as per serial – 20 of agreement paper annexure – 1 where under they were required to give four months service under economic scheme but they only extended the scheme for three months which is violation of serial – 20 of annexure – 1.
Thus, the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service which has resulted in mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
We are not in on position to know whether the complainant is using the same service till today or not.
Hence we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Member President
