Orissa

Cuttak

CC/128/2019

Jatindra Kumar Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secretary,Department of Information & Broadcasting - Opp.Party(s)

J K Nayak & associates

07 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                C.C.No.128/2019

                               

Sri Jatinddra Kumar Nayak,Advocate,

S/O:Sj. Jagadananda Nayak,

At:Bidanasi,(Swasti Sadan),P.O:Abhinab Bidanasi,

Town/Dist:Cuittack,Pin No.753014.                                   ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.         Secretary,Department of Information and Broadcasting,

At/PO:Central Secretariat,New Delhi,

Pin No.110001.

 

2.        Mr.Arun Kumar Kapoor,C.E.O,

Dish T.V.,At:C.C-19,Sector-16-A,

FilmCity,P.O:Noida,U.P. Pin No.201301.

 

3.        Mr. Biswajit Bai,Aria Manager,

Dish TV,At:Markat Nagar,Sector-10,

Plot No.C/55-1,PO:Abhinab Bidanasi,

P.S:Markat Nagar,

Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753104.... Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    18.10.2019

Date of Order:  07.05.2022

 

For the complainant:          Mr. J.K.Nayak,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1       :          Mr. S.Jena,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.No.2 & 3:          Mr. M.B.Rao,Adv. & Associates.     

       

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

 

            The case record is put up today for orders.

            The case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he is a subscriber of Dish T.V. and recharge the same to view his selected channel by payment of Rs.200/- per month.  The O.P No.2 & 3 discontinued telecasting some of the channels which were previously subscribed by the complainant.  The V.C No. of the complainant is 01508330244.  The O.P No.2 disobeying the direction of the Telephone Regulatory Authority of India in short TRAI delinked all the channels for selection of channel by viewers from midnight of 6.3.2019 and instructed to the viewers to miss-call from registered mobile number to a particular number for each of the channels to be in package list and to view such channels, whereas the TRAI had extended the date to 31^st March,2019 for selection of channels by viewers.  The viewers when opted such procedure to view the channel, the O.P No.2 enhanced the recharge amount/monetary dues.  The complainant had paid Rs.300/- in the month of March,2019 and his next recharge date was 17.4.19.  But the O.P No.2 again compelled to the complainant to pay twice for a particular channel by delinking all the channels on 6.3.2019.  The O.P No.2 had not issued any notice or instruction to the authorised local agents about such cut off date.  The complainant therefore was constrained to send notice to O.P No.2 and gave list of channel for which he was interested for viewing.  But the O.P No.2 did not take any action.   It is further alleged that the O.P No.2 had adopted unfair trade practice and harassed the viewers which caused mental agony on the part of large number of viewers including the complainant.  The complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice caused by them.

2.         The O.P No.1 has contested the case and filed his written version. It is stated by him that the complainant has not hired any service from him for which he is not a consumer under him under the C.P.Act.  The case is barred by law of limitation of limitation.  It is prayed by him to dismiss the complaint case as against him.

3.         O.P No.2 & 3 has contested this case and has filed their written version.  It is stated by them that the complaint case is liable to be dismissed on the point of jurisdiction.  As per the agreement executed all the disputes are to be resolved by way of arbitration.  It is stated that complainant has been provided complete service in addition to taking all steps to provide all support and assistance.  The problem which was faced by the complainant on this issue were due to his own reason.  It is stated by him that the complainant with malafide intention has filed the litigation and has unnecessarily dragged him to the present case which is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.  The complaint case has been filed after resolution of the issue.  It is stated that the complainant never served any notice upon him before institution of the complaint.  If the complainant would have done so, he would have resolved the issue if any at the very moment.  It is stated that the complainant recharged his dish T.V connection on 10.9.19 with Rs.300/- having validity till 24.9.19.  On 24.9.19, the complainant did not make any recharge to his connection.  The complainant even after expiry of validity period had  not made any recharge to his connection, consequently, due to no balance, the broadcast of channels were stopped from the telecast on his connection.  The complainant on 29.9.19 recharged his connection with Rs.200/- for which he received a reduced validity till 5.10.19 due to deduction of pay later service charge and processing fees.  It is also stated that on 24.2.19 before the new regime migration recharged his connection with Rs.300/- and received a validity till 22.3.19 against his running package/south all sports and thriller active service.  Thereafter the complainant in order to select the package before 31^st March,2019 (last date of select of channels as per TRAI notification dt.12.2.19) approached the authorised Dish care centre of O.P No.2 and requested to change his package from South All Sports and Thriller Active Service to Super Family Oriya.  Accordingly, his package was successfully changed and he got a new validity till 23.3.19.  Consequently, the old channels of the complainant under old package were stopped and new channels under new package were introduced from midnight of 6.3.19.  It is also stated that in order to provide ease of subscribers for selecting channels, initiation with a process wherein a subscriber can give a miss call from any registered mobile number to a particular mobile number alongwith a particular channel i.e., if a subscriber will give a registered mobile number for a particular channel, that channel will get activated for his connection and a particular amount will get deducted from his dish tv connection which will impact the validity of his connection.    It is also stated that neither O.P.2 have a process wherein a subscriber can send the list of channels he wish to select to O.P.2 via registered post nor the TRAI has suggested/directed to have such process.  Thus, when the complainant sent the list of channels via registered post to O.P No.2 on 8.4.2019, no action was taken on the same.  Also, the O.P No.2 could not understand the purpose of complainant sending the list via registered post to him(O.P No.2), when the complainant has already selected the channels via authorised Dish Care Centre and also by giving several missed calls for different channels.  The complainant has come with an intention to confuse this Forum by incorrect facts.  He is still enjoying the service through O.P No.2 continuously making recharges for his connection.   It is stated that there is no cause of action by the complainant for filing the present case against him and it should be dismissed.  It is stated by O.P No.2 that as per the agreement there is an Arbitration clause and as per arbitration clause this case is not maintainable.  It is also stated that the complaint being devoid of any merit against O.P No.2 is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written versions of O.P.1 along with O.Ps No.2 & 3 this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues.

            i.          Whether the case is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issues No.1 & 2

            For the sake of convenience issues NO.1 & 2 are taken up together first for consideration.  It is admitted fact that the complainant was viewing Dish T.V channels from the O.Ps by subscribing as per the payment procedure opted by him.  The V.C.No. of complainant is 01528330244.  Admittedly there was dispute regarding fee of channels but it is a constant plea of the O.Ps that they have rectified the problem when brought to their notice by the complainant.  On the other hand, the complainant urges that even in spite of paying the charges as levied by the O.Ps and when his validity persisted, he was restrained from enjoying the channels in the Dish T.V provided to him by the O.Ps.  As it appears in this case that the O.Ps are service providers whereas the complainant agreeing to the procedures of the O.Ps had paid the charge with an intent to enjoy the T.V channels as desired by him through the Dish T.V connection provided to his house by the O.Ps which was in existence.  Thus, the complainant is undoubtedly a consumer here in this case and he had a cause of action to bring in this case when he could not enjoy watching the channels for which he had paid.  Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.3.

            The O.P No.1 has taken a plea that the case is barred by law of limitation.  Hence, it is the O.P No.1 to prove the same and he had not proven as to how the case is barred by law of limitation.  Thus it cannot be concluded here in this case that the case is barred by law of limitation.  Accordingly this issue is answered.

Issue No.4.

            The complainant has filed this case being aggrieved when the complainant could not enjoy the intended T.V channels through the dish T.V of the O.Ps.  Moreso, it is noticed that there are numerous free channels which are surprisingly not available to be enjoyed by the customers including the complainant here in this case.  “To the contrary, it is the plea of the O.Ps that since because the complainant had not recharged as per the monthly scheme, he was debarred from enjoying the intended T.V channels through them.  Later, when the complainant recharged by paying the desired amount, he was allowed to enjoy the channels but to the reduced amount since because there was deduction of reconnection fee etc from the amount paid by him towards monthly recharge.  Be that as it may, when the TRAI had enabled  customers in order to reselect and subscribe the channels as per the new plan as per procedure and the date given by the TRAI for so doing was 31^st Marchy,2019, whereas, the complainant had paid his monthly subscription which was valid upto 17.4.19, the O.Ps had stopped providing the dish TV channel facility to the complainant with effect from 6.3.19 midnight; which is quite   illegal and imbibes this Commission to arrive at a conclusion that the erring O.Ps who had acted arbitrarily and not in consonance when the TRAI rules/Instruction are definitely responsible for causing harassment, mental agony and suffering to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to the relief as sought for by him here in this case.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                                                  ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for the latches caused by them.  The O.Ps No.2 & 3 are thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant towards the sufferings caused to him with effect from 6.3.19 i.e the date when they had disconnected the cable connection of the complainant for no fault of him; along with interest @ 10% per annum till final payment is made to the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a month hence.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 7^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

                                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.