DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.300/2016
Sh. Ajay Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Aggarwal
R/o 1170 Chatta Madan Gopal
Mali Wara, Chandni Chowk
Delhi-110006 ….Complainant
Versus
Tata Sky Limited
Through its Manager
VSNL Complex
Chhattarpur Mandi Road, Chhattarpur
Delhi-110030 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 16.09.16 Date of Order : 25.10.18
Coram:
Sh. R.S. Bagri, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that, in the year 2013 the representative of OP approached and convinced him to get installed Tata Sky connection, under promise to provide better picture quality, sound and better quality service. The complainant accepted the proposal and installed the Tata Sky connection and chose Dhamaal Mix Pack as it offered upto 160 channels. The complainant was issued ID No. 1113278996 by the OP. It is stated that since the complainant got the connection installed there has been problem in the transmission specially on cloudy days and no signal in rainy time. A little change in the weather conditions stops streaming all the channels and the transmission improves as the weather clears. Thus, the promise of unparalleled television viewing totally fails. It is submitted that on 29.11.2015, few channels streaming completely depriving the complainant and his family members from their favourite programmes. Immediately the complainant informed the OP and requested, to look into the matter. On 30.11.15 the said channels were working but after sometime they stopped catching signal again. The complainant again informed the OP vide email dated 03.12.15, the OP demanded Rs.170/- to ratify the problems by checking the television set. The complainant vide email dated 04.12.15 informed the OP that television set is working properly as many channels are streaming while few are not catching signals, so the fault is at the end of the OP for which the complainant is not liable to pay but the OP insisted to payment of Rs.170/- in case the complainant wishes to view all the channels. The complainant sent email dated 08.12.15 when most of the channels stopped streaming and again the OP insisted on payment of Rs.170/- which the complainant denied to pay as the amount demanded was arbitrary and illegal. The OP chose not to pay any heed to the problem of the complainant however, the complainant was required to pay full package amount Rs.270/- per month whereas the OP in their advertisement advertised “pay for what you watch.” On 07.05.16 the OP representative called the complainant and showed interest to solve the long awaited problem, but to no avail as the OP has demanded Rs.170/-. The complainant again explained the OP that the fault was not at his end as few channels are streaming properly. The OP was not agreed with the complainant request and insisted for payment of Rs.170/- to get the problem rectified. The complainant sent the legal notice on 27.07.16 but no reply was received by the OP. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint with the following prayers:-
i. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
ii. Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- to the complainant towards litigation expenses.
OP in its written statement has inter-alia stated that the complainant had taken DTH (Direct-To-Home) connection from the OP vide subscription ID No. 1113278996 which was activated on 16.09.13. The first one year i.e. from 16.09.2013 to 15.09.14 the complainant availed the benefit of base Annul Service Commitment, which included service of set up box digicomp and schedule service visit free of charges. Annual service Commitment (ASC) is a special service offered to Tata Sky subscriber. It is submitted that for each service visit certain costs are incurred by the OP. Thus, a nominal service visit fee charge from the subscriber where base ASC. ASC has expired. As per the terms and conditions of the subscription contract between the OP and the subscriber agreed at the time of installation, for availing OP’s services, and in accordance with TRAI’s quality of service regulation, OP has the right to charge or service visit. Accordingly, Rs.170/- towards service visit charge was debited from the subscription amount of the complainant on 22.05.15. However, when the complainant called and expressed his displeasure as a goodwill gesture the same was reversed to his subscription account on 27.05.15. Again Rs.170/- towards service visit charge was debited from the subscription account of the complainant on 26.10.15. The complainant once again complained about the same, and as a goodwill gesture it was reversed to his subscription account on 30.10.16. It is submitted that the complainant complained of not being able to view certain channels on certain occasions. As per the call logs, the complainant was not willing to pay the service visit charges. The complainant after a lapse of around 5 months sent an email dated 08.05.16 complaining that DTH is not receiving signals, hence it is clear that there was no problem with the transmission during December, 2015 till May, 2016. The complainant was regularly recharging his DTH account and last recharge was done on 15.12.16 for Rs.1000/- i.e. after filing the present complaint. Thus it is clear that there was no problem with the transmission. It is denied that the channels in the chosen package were not streaming and there was any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The receipt of the legal notice dated 27.07.16 is not denied. The contents stated therein are incorrect, an afterthought and hence denied and thus it was not replied. It is submitted that the complainant while refusing to pay the service visit did not give the OP any opportunity to visit his premises and resolve the issue, if any, faced by the complainant. The complainant has not set up any nexus between the compensation damage and litigation expenses claimed and the alleged injury sustained by him hence he is not entitled to any relief as prayed for. It is submitted that the package of the complainant was de-activated on 06.02.17. Denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder and reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Gyaltsen G. Barfungpa, Assistant General Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Admittedly the complainant installed the Tata Sky connection from the OP on 16.09.13. The complainant filed the Dhamal Mix Package upto 160 channels as Annexure-1 for the purpose of proper identification. The complainant sent various emails to the OP regarding resolving the problem. We mark the same as Annexure-2 for the purposes of proper identification. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.07.16 which we mark as Annexure-3 for the purposes of proper identification. The OP filed the Customer Care Rules & Regulations which we mark as Annexure-4 for the purposes of proper identification. The OP filed the statement wherein he has credited Rs.170/- twice in the subscription account of the complainant which we mark Annexure-5 for the purpose of proper identification.
As per the averments made by the parties it is clear that at two occasions the OP charged the amount of Rs.170/- each and the same was debited from the subscription account of the complainant and same was credited on 27.05.15 & 30.10.16. The complainant was regularly recharging the DTH account and the complainant recharged lastly on 15.12.16 for Rs.1000/- i.e. after filing of the complaint on 16.09.16. Thus, it is clear that there was no problem with the transmission provided by the OP. As the complainant has not made the payment the OP, OP de-activated the Tata Sky connection on 06.02.17.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as the complainant has himself refused to pay the service visit charge to the OP, therefore the OP could not visit the premises of the complainant to resolve the issue.
Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to as costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.10.18.
