Haryana

StateCommission

A/563/2017

DISH TV INDIA LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURENDER SINGH DAGAR - Opp.Party(s)

BRIJENDER KAUSHIK

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                                        First Appeal No.563 of 2017                                                             Date of Institution: 11.05.2017                                                               Date of Decision: 30.01.2019

Dish TV India Limited, FC-19, Sector 16-A, Film City, Noida-201301 through its Authorized signatory.

…..Appellant

Versus

Surender Singh Dagar (age 37 years) s/o Sh. Sh.Ishwar Singh, R/o Vikas Nagar, Jhajjar, Tehsil & District Jhajjar.

                   …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. Ram Singh Chaudhary, Judicial Member.

Present:              Shri  Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Shri  Robin Lohan, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

RAM SINGH CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

          Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that   on 28.06.2016, complainant replace his Dish TV equipments through opposite party-appellant, but, opposite party replaced only HD set top box and did not replace antina, cable and connector and the O.P. illegally charged Rs.1000/- from him.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.      O.P. filed reply controverting its averments.  O.P.  alleged that   appellant offered the complainant for change of his entire SD set up with HD set up under 999 scheme and same was replaced as per the scheme on 28.06.2016.  Due to unavailability of the compatible wire, the replacement of set up HD box was not done on 28.06.2016 instead of 26.06.2016.  The complainant was enjoying the service of the O.P. through his SD connection. Thus there was  no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

3.      After hearing both the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 06.04.2017 and directed the O.P. to  pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment etc. suffered by the complainant at the hands of respondent.  The complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. -appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      This argument has been advanced by Sh.Brijender Kaushik, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Robin Lohan, the learned counsel for the respondent. With his kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Forum including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties had also been properly perused and examined.

6.      In fact as per the matrix of the facts and reply filed thereto before the learned District forum it is not in dispute that respondent has replaced the entire SD set up of the complainant.  It is not disputed that due to unavailability of the compatible wire with the local service franchise, the replacement was done on 28.06.2016 instead of 26.06.2016. 

7.      Since the O.P. has not been provided service to the complainant within 24 hours due to unavailability of the compatible wire.  It was the fault of the O.P. to resume the service on 28.06.2016 instead of 26.06.2016.  In the considered opinion of this Commission, the amount of the compensation allowed by the learned District Forum, Jhajjar  for causing mental agony, harassment and interruption of a two day only for not displaying the programme on the TV is apparently is on higher side, which may be reduced. 

8.      In the interest of justice and equity, the compensation awarded by the learned District Forum is reduced to Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.30,000/-. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.17,750/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification.

 

January 30th, 2019                        Ram Singh Chaudhary,                                                                          Judicial Member                                                                                       Addl.Bench                 

S.K.