Delhi

North East

CC/158/2017

Roshan Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Sky Litmited - Opp.Party(s)

16 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No.158/17

 

In the matter of:

 

	Roshan Garg S/o  Sh. Indra Sen Garg R/o House No. G-88, New Seelampur, Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	M/s TATA sky Ltd. ( Now TATA Play Ltd.) Residence: C-21, Netaji Road, Subash Park, Adarsh Nagar, R.W.A. office 175, Mandakini   Appartments, Alaknanada, New Delhi-110033 D-41,Sector-59, Phase-3, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, U.P.201307	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: ORDER RESERVED ON:           DATE OF ORDER:

05.05.2017 08.09.2022 16.11.2022

 

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

 

ORDER

 

      Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a TATA Sky DTH connection bearing no. 1154960833 in June 2016 and which was valid for one year i.e. June 2017. The Complainant stated that his DTH connection was continuously suffered technical issue and he had called the customer care several time and he got the same reply every time as there is technical issue and they will fix it as soon as possible. In December 2016 he again called the customer care as his DTH connection was not working properly and he requested the official of Opposite Party to disconnect his DTH connection and refund the balance amount as per his entitlement. Then the official of Opposite Party gave reply that they will connect him to senior official of customer care and disconnected his call. The Complainant stated that in January 2017 the Opposite Party disconnected his DTH connection and stop providing the services to the Complainant. The Complainant submitted that he lodged a complaint on customer care of Opposite Party regarding disconnection and they had given him a docket no. 144764 and he also approached the TATA sky customer care official and the official of Opposite Party called the customer and did not give any satisfactory response to him. The Complainant stated that officials of Opposite Party forwarded his complaint to their head office at www. PGPORTAL.GOV.IN  which is valid for only 45 days. After 45 days the Complainant received a call from Opposite Party but he get the same reply as he is getting earlier. The Complainant stated that the official of customer care of Opposite Party again gave a docket no. 205033 to him for filing his complaint to Opposite Party and requested him to lodge a complaint in Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The Complainant stated that he had taken the yearly plan from Opposite Party but his DTH connection was not worked properly and he had called the customer care several times but he did not get any satisfactory response from their side. Hence, this shows deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 3,000/- on account of connection cost, Rs. 20,000/- for metal harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation charges.

Case of Opposite Party

2. Opposite Party contested the case and filed Written Statement. It is stated by Opposite Party that Complainant had taken TATA Sky connection from the Opposite Party vide subscription ID No.1154960833 and the subscription account was activated on 06.06.2015. It must be

noted that from the date of activation, every subscriber is provided an Annual Service Commitment (ASC) free of charge for one year which includes service visit charges and the ASC is renewable upon payment of renewal fees. It must be appreciated that for service visits, certain costs are incurred by the Opposite Party and are provided free of cost during the ASC only. Therefore, after the expiry of the ASC period for resolving any complaint nominal charges are levied for visit by the technician of the Opposite Party and handling charges in actual are levied if any parts are changed. The said charges are deducted from the subscription account of the subscriber. Like any other customer, the Complainant also enjoyed the benefit of ASC till 05.06.2016, however the same was not renewed by the Complainant after expiry.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the Complainant subscribed for Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack on 13.06.2016 and paid Rs. 2970/-. The said pack was valid till 12.06.2017
4. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant had been viewing the channels, since the date of installation without any complaint.
5. That the Complainant called up the Customer Care department of the Opposite Party on 09.11.2016 wherein he enquired about the subscription charges only and did not raise any complaint.
6. That, thereafter the Complainant on 18.12.2016 called up the Customer Care department of the Opposite Party and for the first time lodged a complaint regarding No Signal issue. The said problem could not be rectified since the Complainant was not in front of the Television and thus was requested to call again. The Complainant called the Opposite Party on 19.12.2016 for said issue. Upon understanding the issue, the Complainant was assured that the compliant will be rectified by the technician of the Opposite Party. Further, since the subscription account of the Complainant was out of ASC, the Complainant was informed about applicable service visit charges (SVC). However, the Complainant for the reasons best known to him, was not willing to pay the SVC and further requested the customer care representative to cancel the subscription account. The request for cancellation raised by the Complainant was acceded and the subscription account of the Complainant was cancelled on 22.12.2016 at 04:27:06 PM.
7. As a result of the above cancellation, the Annual Pack subscribed by the Complainant was also dropped from the subscription account and the subscription account was left with Rs. 451/- as on 22.12.2016.
8. Thereafter, upon Complainant’s request on 30.12.2016, the subscription account was reactivated on the same day at 11:15:07 AM. It is submitted that since there was no separate request from the Complainant for subscription of a specific pack, the subscription account was resumed with Dhamaal Mix Monthly Pack which means that the subscription account would be debited at Daily Burn Rate (DBR) which was Rs. 9.50 per day as of 30.12.2016. In view of the fact that the signal issue was unresolved since 22.12.2016, a service request was raised by the Complainant on 30.12.2016. It must be noted that the Complainant was again informed about the levy of SVC since the subscription account was not under ASC which was not objected by the Complainant. On the same day, the technician of the Opposite Party visited the premises of the Complainant and resolved the issue and the SVC of Rs. 200/- were debited from the subscription account on 31.12.2016. The closing balance of the subscription account was Rs. 232/- after making adjustments of all applicable charges (i.e DBR and the SVC).
9. Thereafter, the Complainant was charged as per DBR which exhausted on 24.01.2017 and thereafter did not recharge his subscription account till 11.03.2017. On 13.03.2017, the Complainant called up the Customer Care department of the Opposite Party and requested for the Package Change and as per the request of the Complaint the package was changed to My 99 Pack on 13.03.2017. The monthly statements of January 2017-March 2017 are attached as Annexure OP1(collectively).
10. Thereafter, Complainant on 18.02.2017 filed a complaint against Opposite Party before the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) alleging that the package was changed without his consent. Upon receipt of the said complaint on 17.03.2017 from MIB, the Complainant was explained over a phone call on 19.03.2017 that all the acts of the Opposite Party were on the basis of the instructions of the Complainant only. The said complaint was duly responded by the Opposite Party vide letter dated 24.03.2017 stating that the issue had been resolved and it was also stated that the as per the request of the Complainant, the Monthly Dhamaal Mix Pack has been modified to My 99 Pack on 13^th March, 2017.
11. That since March 2017, the Complainant is regularly recharging his subscription account and his availing the services of the Opposite Party which itself signifies that the Complainant is satisfied with the services of the Opposite Party.
12. That the Complainant recharged his subscription account for an amount of Rs. 169/- on 26.07.2017 and that the subscription account of the Complainant is active as of now.
13. That there has been no deficiency on part of the Opposite Party. The

Opposite Party has duly revolved all the issues pertaining to the subscription account of the Complainant within a reasonable time period and that the Opposite party has duly provided all the services to the Complainant at all times.

Rejoinder to the Written Statement of Opposite Party

14. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by the Opposite Party and he has reaffirmed the averments made in the complaint and has denied the averments made in the written statement.
15.  It is further stated by Complainant that  he is having subscription account with Opposite Party from 06.06.2015 is not relevant for the present context as the present complainant does not relate to the period 06.06.15 to 05.06.16. However, it is submitted that at the time of selling the subjected connection to the complainant in June 2015, no document regarding annual service commitment only for one year was ever supplied by the Opposite Party nor the terms and conditions thereof were explained to him except that the services would be provided on site in case any defect or error occurs. No document showing the aforesaid annual service commitment or terms and conditions has been placed on record either by the Opposite Party and now it has come forward with the plea that after expiry of the ASC period forresolving any complaint nominal charges are

levied for visit by the technician of the Opposite Party and handling charges in actual are levied if any parts are changed. The Opposite Party has also now come up with a plea that such charges are deducted from the subscription account of the subscriber whereas the facts remain that these things were never explained by the Opposite Party to the Complainant at the time of activating the connection originally in June 2015.

16.  There was no question for charging any service visit charges (SVC) because no such condition was ever mentioned or explained by the Opposite Party to the Complainant at the time of activating the connection in June 2015 as mentioned above. Therefore, refusal to pay such charges by the Complainant was justified. That is why the Complainant requested the Opposite Party’s representative to cancel the connection and refund the amount for un-utilized period. As per the version of the Opposite Party itself, the connection was de-activated/cancelled on 22.12.16 but no refund was issued to the Complainant.
17. The request for pack change if made by the Complainant on monthly basis has no nexus with the deficiency in service committed by the Opposite Party in respect of earlier connection which was taken for one year.
18. The letter dated 24.03.17 is emphatically denied being forged and never received by the Complainant. No evidence has been filed on record by the

 

Opposite Party to prove its delivery to the Complainant.

Evidence of the Parties

19. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Gyaltsen G Barfungpa, Authorized Representative of Opposite Party having its registered office at 3^rdGloor, C-1, Wadia International Centre (Bombay Dyeing), Pandurang Bhudhakar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-4000025, Maharashtra(India) and regional office at TATA Communications Complex, Mandi Raod, Chhatarpur, Mehrauli, New Delhi-110074, wherein the averments made in the written statement have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

20. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the parties. The Case of the Complainant is that he purchased a TATA Sky DTH connection in June 2016 and which was valid for one year i.e. June 2017. As per Complainant that his DTH connection was not working properly for which he made several calls to the Customer Care and which was not

fixed by Opposite Party due to which he made a request to dis-connect his DTH connection and refund his balance amount. As per Opposite Party, Complainant was having DTH connection from 06.06.15 and which was valid for one year. The same connection was extended for one more year from 2016 to 2017. As per Opposite Party, from the date of activation, every subscriber is provided an Annual Service Commitment (ASC) free of charge for one year which includes service visit charges and the ASC is renewable upon payment of renewable fees. Further stated by the Opposite Party, it must be appreciated that for service visits certain cost are incurred by the Opposite Party and are provided free of cost during the ASC only. So, the Complainant made complaint regarding Non-functioning of his DTH connection they informed him that since their ASC is expired in 2016 and he has not paid any renewable charges for ASC, he has to pay certain amount for the visit of the Engineer to rectify the technical error in his house. As per Complainant, Opposite Party did not informed him or supply any document or information regarding ASC valid only for one year i.e. first year of the connection.

21. It is admitted fact that Complainant was having DTH connection for 2015

and which was renewed after expiry of one year.Complainant’s DTH connection suffered certain technical issue in second year of his subscription which was not rectified by the Opposite Party on the ground that Complainant did not pay any charges for ASC of the second year.

22. It is clear from the above discussion and pleadings of the Opposite Party that he did not produce any document regarding ASC and they fail to rectify the technical issue faced in the DTH connection of the Complainant. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
23. As far as the Complainant’s prayer for refund of Rs. 3,000/- on account of connection charges is concerned, Complainant used the connection from June 2016 to December 2016 and balance amount of his subscription was Rs. 451/- which was resumed with the next package purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The prayer for refund of Rs. 3,000/- is not allowed.  
24. In view of the above discussion, complaint is allowed. Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental harassment and litigation charges to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
25.  Order announced on 16.11.2022.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President