BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 305/2009

Dated : 27.02.2010

Complainant:

R. Sasidharan, Happy Villa, Mariya Nagar, Erappukuzhi, Kudappanakkunnu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 043.

Opposite party:

Skyline DTH Shoppee, Pazhavangadi, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 06.02.2010, the Forum on 27.02.2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

Allegation of the complainant is as follows: Complainant had purchased Sun Direct DTH system from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 1,999/-. Accordingly, he received regional channels and free channels besides the pay channels. Complainant was informed that, after a period of one year, regional channels and free channels would be available without any payment. But after one year, the free channels and regional channels were not available. On enquiry, complainant was told that the same has been stopped, since other consumers are enjoying the free channels and regional channels without recharging. Complainant further alleges that, if the same had been informed to him earlier, complainant would have opted Doordarshan DTH. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievance.

Inpite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, the opposite party neither appeared before the Forum nor have they filed their version. Hence opposite party remains exparte.

Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Ext. P1 series.

The points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant has pleaded that he had purchased Sun Direct DTH System from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 1,999/-. Complainant pleads that he had purchased the same after due enquiry. Now the allegation of the complainant is that he had received the regional channels and free channels besides the pay channels for a period of one year, but now after the said period, it has been stopped. On enquiry complainant was informed that, without recharging, the other consumers are enjoying the free channels and the regional channels and hence they have stopped it. The opposite party made the complainant believe otherwise at the time of purchase. Complainant has furnished Ext. P1 to prove payment of Rs. 1,999/- to Sun DTH. The opposite party inspite of service of notice, has not challenged Ext. P1. Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his claim. Opposite party has not cross examined him, hence his affidavit also stands unchallenged. But the complainant has failed to prove that the opposite parties had offered that regional channels and free channels would be available without any payment even after a period of one year. Hence the first prayer of the complainant that the said channels should be made available without any payment is not allowable. But taking the entire facts and circumstances into consideration and since the opposite party has not denied any allegations levelled against them, we are of the view that the opposite parties shall refund Rs. 1,999/- collected from the complainant and the complainant on acceptance of the same shall return the Sun Direct DTH system which is in possession of the complainant.

In the result, complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party shall refund Rs. 1,999/- to the complainant within a period of one month and the complainant on receipt of the said amount shall return the Sun Direct DTH system. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs and compensation.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 27^th day of February 2010.

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 305/2009

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Original estimate bill No. 4691 dated 09.09.1993.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT