THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC-  53 of 2019

 

 

Sri Santi Majumder,

S/O- Lt. Mathura Mohan Majumder,

Milan Chakra(Adarshya Palli),

P.O. & P.S. A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799003. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1.  Sri Subhankar Choudhury,

Authorized Service Provider, Airtyel Digital TV,

Milan Sangha, Bipani Bitan, Room- 37,

P.S. &  P.O.- A.D. Nagar, Agartala,

West Tripura,-799003.

 

2. Airtel Digital TV,

Represented by CEO, & Director,

Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Airtel Centre,

Gurgaon-122015. ..................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.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : Miss Aradhita Debbarma,

  Mr. Koushik Nath,

  Learned Advocates.   

  

For the O.Ps : Mr. Suman Bhattacharya,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  30.04.2021

 

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant Sri Santi Majumder set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. 

The Complainant's case in short is that the  complainant is a citizen of India and permanent resident of Tripura. That the complainant is the consumer and subscriber of Airtel Digital TV having customer ID No. 3001077284. That the complainant purchased Airtel Digital TV in the year 2009 and since then he is using Airtel Digital TV for enjoying DTH service. On 12.01.2019 he purchased one years(360 days) subscription package from the O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.1800/- for providing DTH service for one year. The O.P. No.1 gave cash memo to that effect on 12.01.2019. thereafter on 15.07.2019 i.e., after 6 months from the date of purchase of one year package DTH service has been stopped. The complainant contacted with O.P. No.1 & 2 on several occasions to inform them about the stoppage of the service and for restoration of the service. The complainant was deprived of enjoying DTH service despite recharge for one year subscription and for that reason he filed this complaint seeking redress from this Commission claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

 

2. On the other hand O.Ps contested the proceeding by way of filing their written version. In their written version they stated that the instant proceeding is not maintainable as there is no cause of action. They further stated that it is true that the complainant is the subscriber of Airtel Digital TV having customer ID no. 3001077284 and he took the Airtel Digital Connection in the year 2009 and since then complainant is using the Airtel digital TV connection without any disturbance or complaint. The O.P. denied and disputed that after 6 months from the date of one year package the DTH service have been stopped. It is further stated that the complainant never lodged any complaint to the customer care service, even no legal notice was ever served. As such there can not be any deficiency of service and negligence in the service on the part of the O.Ps. The O.Ps first time came to know about the problem when they got the notice from this District Commission(Forum). The real fact which is asserted by the O.Ps is that Telecom Regulatory Authority of India(TRAI) vide its letter dated 27.12.2018 to all service provider of broad casting and cable TV services across the country directed to implement the new direction issued by Telecom Regulatory Authority of India immediately and because of the same service provider i.e., the answering O.P. No.2 required to change the old plan of the complainant to the new plan where the complainant required to pay for each channel in order to enjoy the TV programme on which the answering O.P. had no control. It is further stated that the notification/ direction of the TRAI was telecasted repeatedly in the Television  for information in general.  It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the plan of the complainant was ''My plan 219'' but as per direction of TRAI it have to be changed. So, there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. It is further stated that there is no cause of action for the instant suit and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.     

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

Complainant submitted examination in chief on affidavit and one documents namely Money Receipt which is marked as Exhibit- 1. He is also cross examined by the O.Ps. 

On the other hand, O.P. submitted examination in chief on affidavit of one witness namely Sri Amit Kr. Pal holding the post of Manager. One notification dated 27th December, 2018 issued by TRAI has been submitted along with the written reply.  

 

4. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is cause of action for the instant suit/ proceeding?

  (ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant?

  (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/  relief as prayed for?

5. ARGUMENTS: - 

on the date of argument Learned Advocate Mr. Koushik Nath for the complainant was present. But none was present on behalf of the O.P. we heard argument of Mr. Nath.    

 

6. DECISION ON ISSUE NO.1:-

We have minutely gone through the pleadings as well as evidence of both parties. From the written version of the O.P. we find that there is no dispute in respect of purchase of one year subscription package for providing DTH service. The Exhibit-1, money Receipt also supported the claim of one year subscription of package for providing DTH service. As per money receipt (Exhibit-1) there was a contract of service for 360 days for which complainant paid Rs.1800/- and payment was made on 12.01.2019. The O.Ps did not deny the above fact. As per direction issued by the TRAI all the old plan were required to be changed into new plan whereas the complainant also required to pay for each channel in order to enjoy  the TV programme on which the answering O.P. No.2 had no control. In the written version O.P. stated that they are ready to provide 6 months free subscription to the complainant as a good gesture if the complainant withdraw the case. From the examination in chief on affidavit submitted by the O.P.W. Amit Kr. Paul we find that the answering O.P. No.2 offered 6 months free subscription as a good gesture to the complainant but the complainant bluntly disagreed with the said proposal. From the cross examination of the complainant we find that he admitted that he did not send any written complaint to the O.Ps regarding the problem. He also admitted that he was not aware about the changing of tariff pan as per guideline of the TRAI and guidelines of the TRAI. We have taken judicial notice on the Annexure A  which is the notification dated 27th December, 2018 issued by TRAI. By the said notification TRAI gave some directions to all the service providers regarding broad casting and cable TV services to follow their guidelines. On over all appreciation of the pleadings as well as evidences we find that the O.Ps have/had no role for not providing the DTH services to the complainant. O.Ps are bound to obey the directions/ guidelines issued by the TRAI. So, we find that there is no cause of action for filing the instant complaint. Accordingly, the issue no.1 is decided in the negative.  

 

7. ISSUE NO. 2 & 3:-

In view of the decisions arrived at  issue no. 1, there is no necessity to decide these two issues. Resultantly, these two issues are also decided in the negative.

 

8. ORDER:-

In view of the decisions arrived at issue no.1, we are in the opinion that the complaint is not maintainable as there is no cause of action for filing the instant complaint. Hence, complaint is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of costs. 

  

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.