D.O.F. 12.08.2011
D.O.O.29.12.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 29th day of December 2011.
C.C.No.247/2011
U.K.Balachandran,
P.O.Melur,(Via)Palayad,
Thalassery Complainant
1. Reliance Big TV Ltd.,
Business Head Quarters,
4th floor Deerubhai Ambani,
Knowledge city,
Navi Mumbai 400 710. Opposite Parties
(Rep. by Adv.O.Prasannanarayanan)
2. R & E Syndicate,
Dealer, Big T.V.Reliance,
O.V.Road, Thalassery 6 70 101
O R D E R
Smt. 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 `20 lakh as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the subscriber of Reliance big TV connection having subscriptionNo.200551980811. The complainant had recharged for `150 on 8th July 2011, but due to non receipt of signal there is no relay transmission. So the complainant had contacted the 1st opposite party through their toll free number 18002009001 and had registered a complaint having NO.156785777 as per their instruction and assured that a technician will came and cure the defect within 48 hours of registering the complaint. But no one was turned up from their part, even though the complainant had contacted several time after registering the complaint. So the complainant has informed the same to 2nd opposite party. But the non-relay transmission of programmes stands still even today. But the 1st opposite party has been deducing an amount from the recharge amount, even without curing the defect in transmission and hence according to opposite party there is only a balance amount of `3 on 4.8.2011. The family of the complainant consists of five members including the complainant and all of them are depending upon the TV for the news including employment news. So the complainant and his family members had suffered so much of mental, physical and financial difficulties. The complainant and the family members had missed the programs transmitted during this period and it is missed for ever as far as the complainant and his family members are concerned and all these were caused due to the deficient service of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1st opposite party appeared and 2nd opposite party remains absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte. 1st opposite party filed memo stating that in spite of repeated request opposite party had not furnished the details and hence they could not file version and if any deficiency of service, 2nd opposite party is the concerned party to answer. The case of the complainant is that even though he had recharged his reliance big TV connection for `150 on 8th July 2011 from 2nd opposite party, he could not get any relay transmission and even though the same was informed to opposite parties 1 and 2, his problem was not solved and hence he sustained financial as well as mental difficulties. Ex.A1 is the cash bill through which the complainant had purchased reliance big TV and A2 is the statement of facts which shows that the complainant had recharged his reliance big TV connection on 8.7.11 having NO.20055198081 and the confirmation from 1st opposite party was obtained as per No.154422. The 2nd opposite party was exparty and 1st opposite party has not filed any version. The 1st opposite party have not stated anything with respect to relay transmission since they are the persons responsible for scrambled transmissions. As per Ext.A2 2nd opposite party has recharged and get confirmation of recharge. The 1st opposite party has no case that 2nd opposite party has not recharged even though they had received the charge of `150. So 1st opposite party is the responsible person for relay transmissions of progammes. So the problem of the complainant is due to the deficient service of 1st opposite party. But it is true that 2nd opposite party had recharged, but they remains absent and not stated about whether they have done anything to solve the problem of the complainant. This is also a deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party. So we are of the opinion that both opposite parties are liable for non receipt of transmissions of programmes through the reliance big TV connection of the complainant so both of them are liable to compensate the complainant. So we are of the opinion that compensation of `5000 will meet the ends of justice, considering all inconvenience caused to the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay `5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which complainant is entitled to execute the order against opposite parties as per the provisos of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Purchase bill issued by OP
A2. Certificate issued by OP
Exhibits for the opposite Parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
