Punjab

Sangrur

CC/623/2016

Jagwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Sky Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Ritesh Kumar Jindal

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 623                                                                                        

                                                                  Instituted on:  20.10.2016

                                                                   Decided on:    16.01.2017

 

Jagwinder Singh son of Harchand Singh resident of Village Dehlewal, P.O. Bharo, Tehsil and District Sangrur.  

                                                …. Complainant.

Versus

1. Tata Sky Limited, Head Office: 3rd Floor, C-1, Wadia International Centre, ( Bombay Dyeing), Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai- 400025 through its Managing Director/GM/Authorized Signatory;
2. Tata Sky Limited, E-46, Eltop Industrial Area Phase-VIII, SAS Nagar Mohali through its Manager/GM/Authorized Signatory.

      ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Ritesh Jindal,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES      : Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate                  

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Jagwinder Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that under the discount scheme the complainant recharged his Tata Sky connection for one year. On 01.08.2016 to get the benefits the  complainant transferred Rs.1500/- in the account of the OPs through internet banking.  On the next day when the connection of the complainant was not recharged and on enquiry he was told that yet the OPs have not received Rs.1500/-. On 3.8.2016, the complainant to get the benefit of discount offer recharged  his connection through third party top up and paid Rs.1500/- to Sharma Telecom, Near Bus Stand Village Channo, Tehsil and District Sangrur. The OPs also sent  an email dated 7.09.2016 to the complainant to inform that recharge of Rs.1500/- on 01.8.2016 is successful and it reached to Tata Sky Account. The complainant requested the OPs to refund the payment of Rs.1500/- which is transfer by net banking by the complainant and sent email but no response has been received. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund Rs.1500/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of transfer till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/-  on account of deficiency in service,

iii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment,

vi)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.5500/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is submitted that the complainant recharged his Tata sky subscription account for an amount of Rs.1500/- on 01.08.2016 which was credited in the subscription account of the complainant on 03.08.2016.  The complainant vide email dated 08.09.2016 informed the OPs that he had recharged his subscription account for an amount of Rs.1500/- through third party dealer on 03.08.2016. The OPs duly replied the complainant that OP received the payment of Rs.1500/-  recharged on 01.08.2016 which was credited on 03.08.2016. It is further submitted that the  complainant has not provided the details of the recharge done by him on 03.08.2016. As such there is no deficiency in service  on the part of the OPs.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents placed on the file and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant, we find that the complainant has produced on record statement of account Ex.C-2,  copy of email Ex.C-3,  email dated 7.9.2016 Ex.C-4 and email  dated 8.9.2016  Ex.C-5. From the perusal of  all the documents we find that they show that the complainant made recharge amount of Rs.1500/-  on 01.08.2016  which was deposited in the account of the complainant on 03.08.2016 by the OPs  which the Ops  already admitted by sending email to the complainant. The OPs further stated that the complainant has not provided/ produced any details of subsequent recharge on 03.08.2016  through third party top up  and paid Rs.1500/- to Sharma Telecom, Near Bus Stand, Village Channo, Tehsil and District Sangrur i.e. authorized dealer of the OPs. We have also perused the entire record/ documents produced by the complainant and also not found  any record/ receipt regarding  payment of Rs.1500/- as second recharge amount to the OPs. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any receipt received from Sharma Telecom, Near Bus Stand Village Channo, Tehsil and District Sangrur through whom the payment was made to the   OPs.

5.             In view of the facts stated above, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the payment of second recharge amount. As such, the complaint is dismissed however with no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                January 16, 2017

 

 

 

  ( Sarita Garg)                                          (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                    Member                                                    President

 

 

 

 

 

BBS/-