Delhi

North East

CC/384/2014

Arun Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Surya Cable T.v. Network - Opp.Party(s)

04 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 384/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Arun Verma S/o Sh. Ramkishore Verma R/o D-562, Gali No. 13, Ashok Nagar, Delhi-93.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Surya Cable TV Network A-41, West Nathu Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-93.   Den Network Ltd 236, Okhla Industrial Estate Phase-3, New Delhi-110020.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

22.09.2014 24.04.2018 04.05.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had three Set Top Boxes of Den Company i.e. OP2 in his residential premises where he was being provided the service of entertainment by OP1 (local cable operator of OP2). However, ever since OP2 and the Government had allowed the option to the public of selecting the package as per the scheme chosen by them in public interest in advertisement, the complainant had been demanding the service of intro package by filling up the subscription form of OP1 and OP2 and alongwith discount subscription form on second and third Set Top Box for which  the complainant had deposited the PAFs with the OPs vide application form No. (i) PAF – 1067415, (2) PAF 1067414 (3) PAF – 1067416 Smart Card No. (i) 000006932917 (2) 0000 16600892 (3) 18550FC65D. However, the complainant stated that OP1 is not providing the package to the complainant stating that OP2 does not give any package or discount to him and OP1 is therefore taking full charges for each STB and accordingly this package was not applicable to him. Complainant further stated that OP1 asked him that in case the complainant wants to see the cable, he will have to pay a charge of Rs. 250/- per STB i.e. Rs. 750/- for three STB. Thereafter, the complainant, opposing to such arbitrariness by OP1, of shutting down all the three STB w.e.f. 21.08.2014, had complained against the above action to the customer care of OP2 as well as vide e-mail but no satisfactory reply was given to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant gave repeated calls to the nodal officer of customer care and as such 10 days period was sought but even after more than one month, no response had been given to the complainant and the problem had not yet been solved. The complainant made repeated e-mails to OP2 between August 21^st to August 29^th 2014 and a copy of the same have been attached by the complainant with the present complaint. It had been further stated that the complainant is seeking the facility as per their prescribed form but the facility is not being provided to the complainant and the complainant is being denied the facility of package again and again. Therefore, the complainant vide the present complaint has prayed before this Forum that a direction be issued against the OPs to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant be given to him by the OPs for causing mental, economic and physical problems faced by him. Further the complainant has also prayed for directions to OPs to give two years free subscription free facility to him and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant has annexed copies of e-mails dated 21^st August to 29^th August 2014 to OP2 about his grievance against disconnection of cable connection by OP1 and illegal charges asked for by OP1 for STB package, copies of call details made to the den customer care, copies of three Package Authorization Forms filled up by the complainant but unsigned and undated.

2. Notice was issued upon OPs on 09.10.2014 for appearance on 11.11.2014 which were duly served. OP1 and OP2 filed their respective written statement taking common defence/grounds for dismissal of the present complaint. OPs took the preliminary objection that as per the TRAI Regulations, after digitalization, every subscriber has to submit duly filled and signed package authorization form to its multi system operator in order to enable the MSO to maintain a proper data/ record of its subscribers in subscriber management system and allot choice as per the signed PAF. However, in the present case, the PAF submitted by the complainant with OP1 was not signed due to which the said form was not accepted by the system of OP2 since the same is required to be duly filled up and signed by the customer in order to allocate the choice of package and because the complainant had submitted the unsigned PAF form which had no authenticity and reliability, the same was not accepted by OP2. The form that are rejected are getting the default package option. Further OPs denied that OP2 was charging full amount from OP1 for every STB and submitted that OP2 was providing package as mentioned in PAF to its customers however there was no discount scheme provided by the broadcaster at the relevant time and therefore the broadcaster is charging per STB. The OPs also took the plea that complainant did not submit duly filled up and signed PAFs to the OPs and instead putting blame for his own wrong on the OPs. Lastly it has been prayed by OPs that the complaint be dismissed and the complainant be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each to OP1 and OP2 as litigation cost and compensation for mental agony and harassment for unnecessarily dragging the OPs in to the present litigation.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OPs was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to defence taken by OP1 and OP2 wherein most of the averments made by the OP2 were denied. The complainant submitted that when the complainant had filled the PAF,  the OP1 had checked the form and told the complainant that OP1 would deposited it with OP2. The complainant had deposited the PAF with intro package with option of Rs. 180/-+ Rs. 90/- each for second and third TV with OP1 which had assured him that the form has been correctly filled without any mistake therein and mistake if any, shall be informed to the complainant for correction but OP1 failed to do so and instead shut down the three STBs from 21.08.2014 and also never gave any proper bill for payments previously made to it by the complainant.   Further complainant stated that it is incorrect that the PAFs was not signed or filled properly. Had that been the case, why the OP2 never informed the complainant of the defect in the several e-mails written by the complainant to OP2 in August 2014 and therefore OPs were entirely at fault since if they had apprised the complainant of the defect in the PAFs, the complainant would have rectified the same i.e. signed the PAFs and taken the package.  Moreover, all the three setup boxes were at one address with the same ID but the facility was not being provided to the complainant. It had been further stated by the complainant that in case there were no signature on the package form as to why the complainant was not told about it by the OPs during his several visits at the office of the OPs besides several e-mails and e-mail reminders to OPs, which were not replied to by the OPs.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated his grievance made in the complaint as well as the rejoinder to the written statement of the OPs. Complainant exhibited the bill slip dated 01.02.2014 for Rs. 3,600/- for three STBs paid to the OP1 for the period February to July 2014, e-mails sent to OP2 between 21.08.2014 to 29.08.2014, itemized phone details and PAFs.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both the OPs. OP1 in its evidence stated that it is distributer of OP2 and in the business of cable TV distribution. OP2 in its evidence submitted that it is carrying out Multi System Operation (MSO) business and cable TV service provider duly registered under provision of section 3 of Cable TV Network Regulation Act, 1995. OP2 further deposed that   as per TRAI Regulations, after digitization, every subscriber has to submit the Consumer Application Form (CAF) and the Package Authorization Forum (PAF) to its Multi System Operator (MSO), in order to MSO maintaining a proper data/record of its subscribers and having a Subscriber Management System (SMS). The said data/record is required for the purpose of billing. The OPs stated that the PAF submitted by the complainant was not signed by the complainant, due to which, the form has not been accepted by the system of OP2. OPs also states that the PAF form is required to be duly filled and signed by the customer, in order to allocate the choice of package. The complainant ha submitted the unsigned PAF form, which has no authenticity and reliability. Therefore, the said form has not accepted by the OP2. Further OPs states that the OP2 has been providing its customer the channels as per the packages chosen by them. It is respectively submitted that the customer has to fill and sign the PAF for the getting the channels of his choice. OPs also states that every incomplete or unsigned form received is deemed to be rejected. The OPs further deposed that the complainant had not properly chosen his choice of package which were available to subscribers and since the complainant had not submitted the duly filled up and signed package authorization form, the channels / package chosen by him could not be provided and the cable connection of the complainant was disconnected due to his own wrongs and further he had not paid the monthly subscription charges and due to this the service had been disconnected. The OPs also deposed that no discount scheme was offered in PAF by the broadcaster and therefore no benefit of the same could be given to the subscribers much less any facility or connection can be given to customer who have not submitted duly filled and signed PAF for channel / packages.
6. Written arguments were filed by both the OPs wherein it was submitted that as per the sub regulation 3 of Regulation 3 of Standards of Quality of Service (Digital Addressable cable TV systems) Regulation 2012 (12 of 2012) as amended upto date, it is mandatory for the subscribers to submit the duly filled and completed in all respect, the application forms to its MSO / LCO. The said Regulation is produced below for the ready reference “(3) any person seeking connection or disconnection or reconnection or shifting of cable service connection or intending to obtain or return setup box at a place located with the area of operation of multi system operator or its linked local cable operator, as the case may be, may submit an application in the format referred to in the sub regulation (1) in duplicate duly signed and complete in all respects, to the multi system operator or its linked local cable operator who shall return the duplicate copy of the application to the applicant as an acknowledgment of receipt of application”. It was also argued that the said data/ record was required for billing purposes. The customer had not filled or signed the PAF for getting the channel of his choice and therefore his incomplete and unsigned form received by OP1 was deemed to be rejected by OP2 system. The OPs further argued that the complainant never properly chose his package. Any discount offered was dependent upon broadcaster providing such discount and at the relevant time period, no discount was being offered to OP2 by the broadcaster. It had been argued by the OPs that the complainant had not paid the monthly subscription charges for August 2014 and for the same the OP1 tried to contact the complainant through the area collection agents but he did not respond and due to the said reason, the service had to be disconnected. Further it was submitted that the complainant was conveyed several times by OPs that because of some fault in his application forms, his choice of package could not be activated and therefore he was getting the default package and the complainant was requested to duly fill up and submit the form again in order to get his choice of his package and other benefits, but complainant failed to do the needful.
7. Written arguments were filed by the complainant reiterating his grievance made out in his complaint, rejoinder and affidavit of evidence. In addition complainant also expressed his grievance to the excessive charges taken by OP1 against the cable package over and above the prescribed date as per exhibit CW1/1 and denying the complainant his choice of package despite facility given by TRAI and charging excessive amount for three STBs from the complainant and abusing the complainant on visit to the office of OP1 for which he deserved relief against OPs.
8. We have heard the oral arguments by both the parties and thoroughly perused the documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties before this Forum.

From bare perusal of the PAF, it can be seems that the same are undated and unsigned which clearly shows that the complainant had not signed the PAF for availing the package from the OPs and as such the PAF were rejected by the system of OP2 as stated in its written statement and complainant was denied the benefit of cable package as stated in written statement of OP1. Both OPs have maintained silence on the issue of not informing the complainant about the defective PAF. On being questioned by this Forum for the same, both OPs replied that all e-mails are dated 21^st August 2014 and thereafter by which time OPs had already disconnected the cable connection of the complainant and therefore no contractual liability between complainant and OPs existed thereafter. However, this arguments/ defence of OPs not informing the complainant vide reply to any of his e-mails about defect in his PAF due to which the package facility was not being provided to the complainant is rather lame, unconvincing and evasive. However nonetheless and notwithstanding, the complainant was himself responsible for filling up fill up the form correctly, completely and signing it for availing the package facility rather than leaving it on OP’s discretion / mercy for giving him the benefits of the package without his signatures.

9. The OPs have satisfied us for reason / defence of rejection of PAF of the complainant by the system MSO / LCO as being defective. The OPs have disconnected the cable connection of the complainant in August 2014 due to non payment and have stated that there was no discount package being offered by broadcaster at the relevant time and therefore the rates being asked for by the complainant in the present complaint could not have otherwise also been offered to him had the connection continued and therefore charges of                Rs. 750/- for the three STBs from the complainant as against Rs. 180/- + Rs. 90/- for the second and third STB as asked for / claimed by the complainant as discounted / Den Intro Pack. The OPs had already disconnected the cable connection of the complainant before he started writing e-mails to OP2 regarding package Charges, disconnection etc and therefore OPs were under no obligation to inform the complainant about the defective PAF which the complainant should have been careful in filling and signing himself lest any defect be found therein at a later stage as has happened in the present case.  Accordingly, we are of considered opinion that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such the complaint is dismissed as devoid of merits with no order as to cost to the either side.      
10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on 04.05.2018 

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member