BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.

Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1446/2016

Complaint filed on 01.09.2016

Date of Judgement.29.07.2017

PRESENT                                : 1. Shri Ramachandra  M.S.,  B.A., LL.B.,

                                                        PRESIDENT

                                     2. Shri  Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B., 

                                         MEMBER

Complainant/s               :               1.Sri S.Shivakumar

                                                          S/o Late Shankaregowda,

                                                          Aged about 37 years,

                                                          # 177/1, 3^rd cross,

                                                          1^st main, Madhya Garadi Beedi

                                                          Kumbarkoppal,

                                                          Mysore.

 (Sri S.J. Lakshme Gowda, Advocate)

V/s

Opponent        /s                     :       1. Sun Direct TV (P) Limited

                                                          No. 73, Murasoli Maran Towers,

                                                          MRC Nagar Main Road,

                                                          MRC Nagar

                                                          Chennai-60028.

                                                          2.Sunshine , No.32,

                                                          MIG 1^st floor, 2^nd stage,

                                                          Nrupathunga Road,

                                                          Kuvempunagar,

                                                          Mysuru.

 (Sri.K.H. Prasanna ., Advocate)

         SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S.,

          PRESIDENT

                                                                          JUDGEMENT

The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party and seeking for relief of connection of dish and other relief.

2. The brief facts of the complaint that the complainant thinking that the office of the opposite party is the best amongst the others in relation to Dish connection, obtained the connection from the office of opposite party way back three years and at that point of time a sum of Rs. 1,800/- as demanded by opposite party and the option which the complainant opted is for a sum of Rs. 150/- per month.

3. It is submitted by the complainant that, the complainant enjoyed the service quite happily for a period of two years without any kind of hindrance or whatsoever from any corner. For the last one year, the complainant due to his personal inconvenience unable to use the dish and as such, not bothered to get it recharge by paying necessary amount.

4. It is submitted by the complainant that, in view of the changed circumstance, the complainant intended to have the service from opposite party and in that direction contacted the authorized and at that point of time the said person informed the complainant to get the smart card which was given at the time of giving connection. But, unfortunately the complainant could not get the said smart card as it was misplaced and in spite of his best 3efforts he is unable to trace out the same. Finally proclaimed that the earlier smart card was misplaced for which the authorized person of the opposite party insisted to obtain new smart card.

5. It is submitted by the complainant that, as per the advise of the opposite party, the complainant obtained new smart card on 09.07.2016 having the number 10369059059R by paying a sum of Rs. 550/- for which no valid receipt  has been given in spite of demand of the complainant. On 09.07.2016 my client has also recharged the Dish for a sum of Rs. 149/- but till date the same has not at all been activated for the  best reasons know and in spite of the complainant’s repeated requests and demands nothing has been one by the said person who is duly authorized by the opposite party, which has to be penalized by appropriated forum. Because of the negligent act and deficiency in service of the opposite party, the complainant has suffered  both mental and monetarily loss which has to be compensated by the opposite party only.

6. It is submitted by the complainant that, for the foregoing reasons, the complainant caused a legal notice dated 27.07.2016 calling upon to give proper connection to the aforesaid smart card and also called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards the damages within seven days from the date of receipt of the said notice the said notice has been duly served upon the opposite party and instead of complying with the demands , the opposite party got issued an untenable reply for the same, which prompted the complaint to file this complaint.

7. The notice to the opposite party no 1 and 2 duly served represented by counsel and filed version contended that they admit the complainant is our consumer and also availed dish connection. Further opposite party deny other allegation of complaint and shifted the burden of proving the same on the complainant.

8. Thereafter opposite party in para 7 his objection statement has submits that they have no objection for the complaint to recharge his connection new card for Rs 550/- which is purchased by complainant and further contends there is no deficiency in service and they are not liable to pay any claim of complainant and prays for dismissal of complaint.

9. The complainant and opposite party no.1 and 2 have filed chief examination affidavit and documents in support of their contention written arguments filed, oral arguments heard, reserved for orders.

10. Heard arguments.

11. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party thereby proves that he is entitle for the relief sought?

2.  What order?

12. Our answer to the above points is as follows;

1. Point No.1: In the affirmative.

2. Point No.2: As per final order for the following;

REASONS

13 . Point No.1:-  That  it is an admitted fact by both parties that complainant has availed dish connection service from the opposite party, it continued for two  years and there after due to personal inconvenience complainant was unable to use the dish for the last one year. And further the averments of complaint is not supported by any documentary evidence and when these facts are categorically denied by opposite party with sufficient cause.

14. Further in view of  admission in of para 7 of version, by way of this admission opposite party made us to believe that there is some deficiency in service on their part. But it may not be like as contended by the complainant in his complaint. When such being the case as per the his own admission of opposite party the complainant is entitle for the relief as per the admission made in version . In view of these facts complainant is entitle for the relief .On these grounds opposite party is also liable to comply the orders of the authority.

15. In view of the above observation the point no 1 we answered in the affirmative

26. From the above discussion we hereby proceed to pass the following :-

                                                                                    ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The opposite party no 1 and 2 is directed recharge dish connection of complainant for Rs. 550/- within 30 days of this order  failing which they are liable to pay penalty of RS. 50 per day till order complied.
3. The complainant is also directed furnish required documents as per all the formalities of opposite party.
4. The opposite party no 1 and 2 is directed to pay of Rs. 500/- towards deficiency in service and Rs. 500/- towards cost of proceedings to the complainant within 30 days of this order.
5. In default to comply the above order opposite party shall pay interest on the said amount of 1,000/- at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of order till payment made.

6. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall    undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of

     the CP Act, 1986.

7.Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules

(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 29^th July  2017)  

Shri Thammanna Y.S.,                                 Shri Ramachandra M.S.,    

          Member.                                                          President.