DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 90 of 2020.

1. Sri Nirmal Bardhan Roy,

S/O. Lt. Sachindra Bardhan Roy,

R/O. “Ramnibas”, Ramnagar Road No.3,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Pin-799002, Dist.- West Tripura …....…....................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Sristi Digital,

Jagannath Bari Road, (Adjucent to Dainik Sambad office), 

P.O.Agartala, Pin-799001, Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura. 

 

2. Sri Chanchal Debbarma,

S/O.-Lt. Manik Debbarma,

Of Krishnanagar, T.G.Road, Opposite Malancha Marriage Hal,

P.S.-Ramnagar, P.O.-Ramnagar, 

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799002............................Opposite Parties.

 

3. The District Magistrate & Collector,

(Regulatory Authority of Press & Media etc.),

Govt. of Tripura, Agartala, Pin-799001, 

P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura.

 

4. The Controller, Metrology Department,

Govt. of Tripura, Neheru Complex, Agartala,

P.S.-NCC, P.O.-Kunjaban,

Dist.-West Tripura. 

 

5. Telecom Regulatory Authority of India,

Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan, 

Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

Next to Zakir Hussain College, 

New Delhi, Delhi-110002......................Proforma..Opposite parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Amrit Lal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Advocates. 

For the O.P. Nos.1, 3, 4 & 5 : None-appeared. 

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Arijit Bhowmik,

  Sri Ankan Tilak Paul,

  Advocates.

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 18/11/2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Nirmal Bardhan Roy,  set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps.  

  The complainants' case, in brief, is that the Complainant a consumer of cable service of Shristi Digital, Jaganath Bari Road, at Agartala. From June, 2019 the cable service suddenly disrupted at 5.45 P.M. On 20th June, 2019 and on contacted with cable operation Supervisor of Ramnagar Area, Shri Chanchel Debbarma of Krishnagar, the line became in order on 24th June, 2019. On inquiry, Shri Debbarma informed him that due to checking of line from operation centre (Shristi Digital) the line was disrupted. In the month of August 2019 Complainant visited office of the Shristi Digital at Jaganath Bari Road and one of the official of same organisation informed him on checking the computer that the line was not disrupted from their operation room. In the month of September, 2019 same disruption of the line was happened and the line of his television was out of order since 5.15 P.M. of 20/09/2019 to 28/09/2019 i.e. for 9 days till afternoon and line became order at the evening after contact with cable line provider Shri Debbarma. Thereafter, Complainant submitted the letter to the Sristi Digital informing the details of the problem to make necessary arrangement to remove the problem in question and to issue the cash memo/money receipt in future for supplying of 'Set of box' and to issue necessary instruction to the Cable line provider for issuance of money receipt on collection of monthly charges. On 18/10/2019 the copy of the same letter was endorsed to the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura District (Regulaltory Authority of Press and Media) and Controller of Metrology Department, Government of Tripura for taking necessary action form the respective department but they have not replied. Complainant stated that the disruption of cable line is till going on each and every month for 2 to 3 days such as the disruption happened on 02/06/2020 and 05/07/2020 and became in order on 04/06/2020 and 06/07/2020 repetitively as no action has been taken from the O.Ps. Complainant further stated that the O.Ps. have not issued any money receipt / voucher after receiving monthly subscription @Rs.250/- per month. This is illegal and unfair trade practice and also violated rules and regulations. 

Hence this case. 

The O.P. No.2 has contested the claim raised by the Complainant by filing written statement refuting the allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. No.2 has denied negligence and deficiency on his part in dealing with the claim of the Complainant. O.P. No.2 in the written objection stated that the instant claim petition under reply is not maintainable in its present form and as such the present complaint under reply deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of maintainability. The factual matrix the Complainant has faced disruption of the cable line resultantly in the television set of the Complainant was out of order from 20/09/2019 up to 28/09/2019. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant faced similar disruption of cable line on 02/06/2020 , 05/07/2020, 04/06/2020 & 06/07/2020 respectively. The Complainant also raised grievance that O.Ps. have not issued any money receipt/voucher after receiving monthly subscription @Rs.250/- per month. The said allegations are absolutely false and denied by the O.P. No.2. O.P. No.2 stated that after introduction of set top boxes which was made mandatory by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. O.P. No.2 further stated that he is only entrusted with the work of maintenance of cable line which was problem in the internal line connecting the set top box with the T.V. Set or with the T.V. Set or the disruption was due to natural phenomenon like thunderstorm, rain etc. the O.P. No.2 can not be faulted. It is further stated that there was no deficiency of service or negligence by the O.P. No.2. Hence, the claim is not tenable in law as such liable to be dismissed. 

           Proforma O.P. No.5, Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has contested the claim raised by the Complainant by filing written statement refuting the allegations of the Complainant. The O.P. No.5 has denied negligence and deficiency on his part in dealing with the claim of the Complainant. O.P. No.5 in the written objection is stated that the present complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or on fact and the answering O.P. No.5 i.e. TRAI, which is neither a necessary party nor proper party in its present form. O.P. No.5 stated that TRAI is a statutory body set up and protect the interests of service providers and consumers of telecom sector. The O.P. No.5 also stated that TRAI is not a seller of goods nor a service provider qua the Complainant. O.P. No.5 stated that TRAI does not provide any goods or services to the Complainant. O.P. No.5 further stated that the complaint does not allege any deficiency of service on the part of TRAI, neither does it seek any relief against him.  So,the O.P. No.5 shall have no liability to settle any claim.  

 

 

 3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

The Complainant examined himself as PW-I and submitted his examination in chief by way of affidavit. He has produced few documents comprising 2 sheets under a Firisti dated 10/11/2020 but documents are not exhibited.  

On behalf of the O.P. No.2, one witness namely Sri Chanchal Debbarma, S/O.-Lt. Manik Debbarma, R/O.-T.G. Road, Opposite to Malancha Marriage Hall, P.O.-Ramnagar, P.S.-West Agartala, Dist.-West Tripura was examined.    

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues were framed for determination:  

   (I). Whether the complaint is maintainable it its present form?   (II). Whether  there was any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (III). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

ARGUMENT OF BOTH SIDES: 

We have heard arguments of both sides. 

At the time of argument,  Learned Counsel of the Complainant submitted that the Complainant was a consumer of cable service of Shristi Digital, Jaganath Bari Road, at Agartala. From June, 2019 the cable service suddenly disrupted at 5.45 P.M. On 20th June, 2019 and on contact with cable operation Supervisor of Ramnagar Area, Shri Chanchel Debbarma of Krishnagar, the line became in order on 24th June, 2019. On inquiry, Shri Debbarma informed him that due to checking of line from operation centre (Shristi Digital) the line was disrupted. In the month of August 2019 Complainant visited office of the Shristi Digital at Jaganath Bari Road and one of the official of same organisation informed him on checking the computer that the line was not disrupted from their operation room. Thereafter, Complainant submitted the letter to the Sristi Digital informing the details of the problem to make necessary arrangement to remove the problem in question and to issue the cash memo/money receipt in future for supplying of 'Set of box' and to issue necessary instruction to the Cable line provider for issuance of money receipt on collection of monthly charges. On 18/10/2019 the copy of the same letter was endorsed to the D.M. & Collector, West Tripura District (Regulaltory Authority of Press and Media) and Controller of Metrology Department, Government of Tripura for taking necessary action form the respective department but they have not replied. Complainant further stated that the O.Ps. have not issued any money receipt / voucher after receiving monthly subscription @Rs.250/- per month. This is illegal and unfair trade practice and also violated rules and regulations. In addition written argument is also submitted on behalf of the Complainant.  

  On the other hand Learned Counsel Mr. Ankan Tilak Paul on behalf of the O.P. No.2 submitted that the instant claim petition is not maintainable in its present form and as such the present complaint deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary ground of maintainability. The factual matrix is that Complainant has faced disruption of the cable line resultantly in the television set of the Complainant was out of order from 20/09/2019 up to 28/09/2019. O.P. No.2 stated that after introduction of set top boxes which was made mandatory by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. O.P. No.2 further stated that he is only entrusted with the work of maintenance of cable line which was problem in the internal line connecting the set top box with the T.V. Set or with the T.V. Set or the disruption was due to natural phenomenon like thunderstorm, rain etc. the O.P. No.2 can not be faulted. It is further stated that there was no deficiency of service or negligence by the O.P. No.2. Hence, the claim is not tenable in law as such liable to be dismissed. 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

All the points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

We have perused the pleadings as well as evidences of both sides and also considered the arguments of both Counsel. 

      At first we will decide the question of maintainability of the proceeding. On perusal of the written statement submitted by the O.P. No.2 we find that Sristi Digital was the distributor / multi system operator of the cable broadcasting. O.P. No.2 is only entrusted with the work of maintenance of the cable line. Rs.250/- was taken a security for the purpose of Set Top Box and it is refundable after returning the Set Top Box. So, Complainant did not purchase the Set Top Box. It is further stated that disruption for about 9 days in the cable connection of the Complainant was the problem in the internal line communicating the Set Top Box with the T.V. Set and sometimes disruption caused owing to thunderstorm or any problem in the outer wiring of cable line. It is further stated that there is a system of online payment and even after receiving money a message is generated in the registered phone number of the consumer in respect of monthly payment. So there is no question of issuing receipt of monthly payment. It is further stated that in the instant case Complainant never registered any complain as per procedure provided under chapter -6 of the regulations 2017.

Complainant in his examination-in-chief on affidavit stated that he is a consumer of cable operator which is under Sristi Digital. His cable service  disruption was on 20/06/2019 at 5.45 P.M. and he informed the matter to O.P. No.2 and thereafter problem was rectified on 24/06/2019. In the month of September it was again disruption from 20/09/2019 to 28/09/2019 i.e. for 9 days. After complaint to O.P. No.2  cable service has been restored. He also alleged that no money receipt is issued while collecting monthly charges and he informed the matter to the D.M. & Collector and Controller of Metrology Department but there was no regulator measure against O.P. Nos. 1 & 2.    

On the other hand Sri Chanchal Debbarma in his examination-in-chief on affidavit(O.P. No.2) stated that O.P. No.1 i.e. Sristi Digital was the service provider and he was only entrusted work of maintenance of external cable line. Set Top Box is not purchased by the customer and the customer is entitled to get back Rs.250/- which is deposited as a security deposit. He further deposed that monthly recharge has to be done by the service provider through online payment and thereupon, a message is generated in the registered phone number. At Para-5 of the Affidavit-in-chief he stated that O.P. No.1 was the service provider and Multi System Operator(MSO) in Tripura has been stopped providing cable services of the channels at Agartala. Sristi Digital has been abolished and no cable service is being provided by the Sristi Digital. At present  Jio Cable services is providing cable services in Agartala City which is a separate entity and has separate payment subscription plan. At present, he is engaged of the work of maintaining the outer cable lines of Jio cable services. The Jio cable services is not a party in this proceeding.    

7. In the instant case allegations is mainly against Sristi Digital and O.P. No.2, Sri Chanchal Debbarma. They are made as principal O.Ps. and O.P. Nos.3,4 & 5 are made as Proforma O.Ps. No relief is sought against Proforma O.Ps. In the relief portion of the complaint it is prayed to direct O.Ps. to issue cash memo, money receipt of supplying Set Top Box and to instruct the cable operator to issue a money receipt at the time of collection of monthly charges and also sought for compensation of Rs.1 lac of causing for mental agony and suffering for adopting unfair trade practice. From the evidence of O.P. No.2 we find that Sristi Digital now has no existence and Jio cable service has taken over the Sristi Digital but Complainant did not make Jio cable service as a party in this proceeding. So in absence of Jio cable service the complaint is not maintainable. 

In view of the above findings we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable and it is dismissed. 

      Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost.    

 Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.