BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 73/2013 Filed on 15.02.2013

Dated: 16.08.2014

Complainant:

Sudarsanan. S, Pushpavilasam, Poikamukku P.O.

                             (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Sunil Kumar, Dish T.V Dealer, Athira Electronics, Attingal.

    

2. Director, Dish T.V, B-10, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110 035.

   (By adv. C.S. Rajmohan)

                                     

This C.C having been heard on 31.07.2014, the Forum on 16.08.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant availed the service of the 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party named under the style ‘freedom package’.  According to the plan he will get 42 channels through Dish TV.  During Onam season all channels were blocked except DD Kerala.  So he approached this Forum through C.C 319/2012 for getting those services, and that complaint was withdrawn by him when the opposite parties settled the matter by reinstating the blocked channels.  Now again the same complaint and so he was forced to approach this Forum claiming the same relief. 

2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending as follows:  Dish TV India Ltd. is a company existing under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at B-10 Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi-110 035 and has been granted a license to provide the Direct to Home (DTH) television services by the Ministry of I & B.  DTH means Direct to Home.  We are the license provider of DTH services under the brand name dishtv.  In a DTH system, the consumer is required to attach a small box (known as Set-top-box) to the television along with a dish antenna.  The DTH service provider transmits the signals of various channels through a satellite in an encrypted form which are received by the customer at its premises through a dish antenna and are decoded/decrypted by the set-top-box attached to TV set which enables a consumer to watch the transmitted channels on TV.  Under the DTH system, every consumer gets a specific code which is the viewing card number.  The viewing card decrypts the channels which are provided to the customer in encrypted mode.  All the consumers are centrally monitored through a monitoring facility.  In this case, this facility is situated at FC-19, Sector 16 A, film City Noida.  Unlike any traditional cable system, each of the consumers is specifically accounted for through an extremely modern subscriber management system (SMS) which maintains the statement of account of all subscribers.  The complainant had subscribed to the Dish Freedom pack offered by the 2^nd opposite party on April 27, 2006.  The complainant was since then satisfactorily enjoying the services of the said Dish Freedom offer without any interruption.  The complainant was satisfactorily enjoying the services of the opposite party from the very beginning which can be seconded by the fact that the complainant has not registered even a single complaint at the customer care centre of the opposite party till date.  Assuming though not admitting that the complainant was facing any problem in his Dish TV connection then why did the complainant never chose to contact the 2^nd opposite party and did not even sent a single complaint even via legal notice before filing complaint before the Hon’ble Forum.  The complainant was since the very inception of the activation of his service enjoying uninterrupted services.  The complainant for the first time filed the consumer complaint CC 319/2012 before the Forum on 18.09.2012.  In the said complaint the complainant alleged discontinuation of certain channels from his package.  It is stated that there was no such discontinuation of channels by the 2^nd opposite party.  Upon receipt of complaint it was found that there was certain problem in reception of those channels which was purely due to force majeure conditions outside the control of the 2^nd opposite party.  Immediately upon the receipt of the complaint, 2^nd opposite party ensured prompt resumption of those channels to the complainant and the complainant started receiving all channels to his entire satisfaction which was duly admitted by the complainant himself.  This Forum was accordingly pleased to dispose of the matter in view of the submission made by the complainant regarding rectification of the alleged defects in his connection.  Complainant again approached the Forum through the present complaint alleging problem in reception of channels and claiming compensation towards the same.  It is worth nothing that the allegations leveled by the complainant as to deficiency in services is false and misleading and cannot be believed to be true.  There has been no deficiency on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  That assuming though not admitting that the complainant did face some problem in the reception of channels, it was again due to reasons beyond the control of the 2^nd opposite party.  Upon verification of the problem it was found that the STB of the complainant suffered from a defect which occurred due to tampering/mishandling of the same and the said defect was beyond repair which necessitated that the STB be replaced.  That in spite of the fact that 2^nd opposite party had no intervention in the alleged problem occurring in STB of the complainant, 2^nd opposite party replaced the set top box of the complainant to ensure that he receives all the channels without any interruption in future.  That the screen shot of his statement of account evidencing that the connection of the complainant is active as on date and is working perfectly fine.  From the above mentioned facts of the case it becomes crystal clear that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  Instead the 2^nd opposite party has been making all efforts possible to ensure that the complainant enjoys uninterrupted and continuous service of dish tv, which he has been doing since the very activation of his connection in April 2006.  This is sufficient to prove that the complainant has filed a false case against the 2^nd opposite party with malafide intention to obtain a wrongful gain to himself by causing wrongful loss to the 2^nd opposite party. 

Issues raised for consideration are:-

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

2. Reliefs and costs if any.

Issues (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed affidavit along with document which was marked as Ext. P1.  Ext. P1 is the brochure of the 2^nd opposite party.  No affidavit is seen filed by the opposite party.  They produced a document along with version i.e; the statement of account bearing No. 01501099873 evidencing that the connection of the complainant is active as on date and is perfectly working.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Complainant filed this petition claiming compensation from the opposite parties for the non-availability of cable channels through Dish TV.  Earlier there was a complaint of the same type and he filed a complaint CC 319/2012 claiming the same relief.  When notice was issued to the opposite parties in that case they were ready to settle the matter and the complainant withdrew the petition as settled.  Nearly two months after that settlement the same complaint repeats and the complainant was forced to approach this Forum for getting his grievance redressed.  According to him, he is not able to watch the various channels available through Dish TV. 

Notice was sent from this Forum to the opposite parties.  2^nd opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complainant’s grievance can be redressed through changing the set top box of Dish TV and they replaced the same again.  In his deposition also complainant admits that he is now getting all channels clearly and that part of his complaint is redressed.  But this time he is insisting for compensation, since he was forced to approach this Forum against the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.  He is claiming compensation for the loss of labour since he earns his livelihood through daily labour.  He claims compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,200/- (Rs. 1,200/- + Rs. 3,000/-).  Here we are of the opinion that first prayer in the complaint become infructuous as the set top box was changed by the opposite party and the complainant also admits the availability of all channels promised by the opposite parties.  The remaining portion regards to compensation.  Earlier also complainant had to approach this Forum for getting all channels.  At that time, that complaint was withdrawn by him as per the settlement done by the opposite parties.  Even before completing 2 months of that settlement, again he was forced to approach us.  This time also opposite parties settle the matter after getting notice from this Forum.  So it is clear that they have gone away from the settlement done before us with the complainant.  So the complainant is eligible for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which we fix at Rs. 2,500/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2,500/- as compensation to the complainant within two months of receipt of this order.  No order on cost. 

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 16^th day of August 2014.

 

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

                                                                   Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

jb      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 73/2013

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - Sudarshan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of brochure of 2^nd opposite party.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

 

                                                                                                             Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb