Delhi

North

CC/97/2019

MUTIUR REHMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA SKY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GMNG & ASSOCIATES

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CC No.:97/2019.

 

Sh. Mutiur Rehman

S/o Sh. Afzalur Rehman,

House No.479,

Chitla Gate, Chawari Bazar,

New Delhi-110006.                                                                                     …                          Complainant

 

                                                                                                Vs

 

Tata Sky Ltd. (Now Tata Play Ltd.) ,

Nodal Officer Sh. Sanjay Mittal,

Regional Office North,

Tata Communication Complex,

Mandi Road, Chattarpur,

New Delhi-110074.                                                                                     …                Opposite Party No.1

 

Tata Sky Ltd. (Now Tata Play Ltd.) ,

Unit 301 to 305, 3^rd floor,

Off C.S.T. Road, Kalina,

Santacruz (East),

Mumbai-400098.                                                                                         …                Opposite Party No.2

ORDER

18/07/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

(1)          The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the Complainant bought Tata Sky DTH connection on 26.02.2019 vide Subscription ID-1302760754 from Opposite Party through its Executive namely Rashmi Khetan with contact no.+91-9315297931 who informed the Complainant about offers & plans details of Tata Sky DTH stating that if the Complainant takes Tata Sky DTH connections then Opposite Party will provide 3 (Three) HD Set Top Box for Rs.6,270/- (Six Thousand Two Hundred Seventy Only) on which they will provide 2 (Two)  months and  10(Ten) days free subscription and the Complainant can choose 150 HD channels and after the end of two months subscription. In that case, Complainant has to pay Rs.6,500/- for annual subscription recharge. The Complainant accepted the offer and on 02.03.2019, technical expert namely Ajay visited to the Complainant residence and installed Tata Sky DTH connection. On next day 03.03.2019, Complainant selected 93 HD channels and subscribed the Tata Sky Channels (F.T.A Promo Pack) and paid Rs.6,270/- through Debit Card.             After one month of the installation of Tata Sky DTH, OP ended Complainant’s subscription package and Complainant complained to the Tata Sky Customer Care about this but the customer care executive informed the Complainant that OP cannot continue the offer plans because the TRAI has changed their guidelines and introduced new Guidelines. The Complainant again called the toll free customer care number (18602086633) of the OP and told them about the issue and when the Complainant didn’t get the satisfactory reply, Complainant asked the customer care executive to refund the money which was paid by the Complainant at the time of subscription but executive of the OP replied that money cannot be refunded. Complainant also made complaint to OP through email twice on dated 29.03.2019 & 03.04.2019 at help@tatasky.com from e-mail id: 9711mkhan@gmail.com but the Complainant didn’t get any response.

 

2.            It has been further stated by Complainant that the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) rules came into effect on 01.02.2019 and later TRAI extended the deadline to 31.03.2019 for the customers to choose their channels but the executive of OP explained the offer plans on 26.02.2019 to the Complainant.       The Complainant has also sent a legal notice to Tata Sky Ltd. on 11.04.2019 but the OP didn’t reply. Therefore, the present Complaint has been filed praying for directions to OP to:-

1. fulfil the offer given to the Complainant or provide any other alternative to overcome the Complainant from the loss faced by him;
2. deliver original facts and all the terms and conditions to their customers without concealing any facts;
3. pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the sufferings of the Complainant;
4. pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation fees to be paid to the legal representative of the Complainant;
5. pass any other such order as this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

3.            Accordingly, notices were issued to the OP and in response, the OP has filed its reply stating that the complaint qua OP is not maintainable because there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP. The OP had already implemented the new TRAI regulations when the offer was made to the Complainant. The authorised dealer of the OP had clearly indicated at the time of providing the said offer that the Complainant would be able to avail 3 HD connections (one primary and two secondary connections) of the OP’s DTH connection at Rs.6,270/- alongwith a month free subscription. The said offer was under the new TRAI regulations. The authorised dealer of the OP informed the above to the Complainant and the amount that would be credited to his subscription account and about the applicable charges post the one month free subscription period and only after being satisfied, the Complainant opted to get the connection of the OP, thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The OP has further contended that the present complaint qua OP is not maintainable as Complainant was informed by the authorised dealer, (through whom the Complainant applied for the OP’s DTH connection) about the charges i.e. Rs.2,072/- for the Primary connection and Rs.4,200/- for 2 multi TV connection at the time of installation. It was also informed by the authorised dealer to the Complainant that an amount of Rs.1,770/- will be credited in his subscription account for the first month subscription and from subsequent month charges would be applicable according to the plan selected by him. Therefore, no deficiency in services could be alleged in such respect. Hence, complaint deserves dismissal. The bill statement of the Complainant is filed as Annexure A3. The bill statement is also available to the subscribers at all times right from the start of activation of the subscription account.

4.            Regarding dispute of the complainant on the offer of 2 (Two)  months and  10(Ten) days free subscription, the OP has stated that the Complainant was informed about the charges as well as that only the first month subscription would be free with activation, post which charges as per the pack would be applicable from the next month. The Complainant was not offered  2 months free subscription as alleged. The same is also not mentioned in the subscriber form relied upon by the Complainant which was signed by the Complainant after being fully satisfied with the information provided by the executive about the offers and charges. The amount charged at the time of activation of the connections and the pack was explained to the Complainant to his full satisfaction and after understanding and being satisfied with the information provided the Complainant opted for the connection of the OP. The account was activated with Hindi Basic HD pack alongwith the FTA Promo pack on 02.03.2019. However, on the very next day i.e. 03.03.2019 the Complainant at his own freewill discontinued the Hindi Basic pack and opted for a-la-carte channels from the OP’s platform. Therefore, the subscription charges were debited in the subscription account as per the a-la-carte rates selected by the Complainant which are as per the new TRAI regulations. The bill statement of the Complainant is filed as Annexure A4.

5.            It is further stated by the OP that the Complainant contacted the customer care number of the OP and enquired/clarified the monthly charges for the channels subscribed and put forth his query on the amount paid by him and on the annual subscription plan. The Complainant was informed that there is no annual plan currently as per the new TRAI regime, however, if he wished to pay annually then he could pay the monthly charges of his subscription for 12 months period with which he would get a month subscription free. It is further submitted that the Complainant did not make any complaint and the queries raised by him were answered to his satisfaction to which he also agreed. Thereafter, he wrote emails dated 29.03.2019 and 03.04.2019 which was an afterthought just to harass and pressurize the OP and make monetary gain out of it.

6.            Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence put forth by the complainant & OP and it has been observed that the Complainant has failed to produce any documents/ evidence relating to alleged offer of 2 (Two)  months and  10(Ten) days free subscription given by Ms. Rashmi Khetan, the representative of the OP whereas the complainant has himself filed a copy of Customer Information form, annexed with the complaint at page 8, which is signed by the Complainant & Rashmi and this form also does not mention any kind of such offer . On the other hand, the OP has filed CD containing call records, transcripts of call recording and its translation alongwith the certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act which reveals that the Complainant’s doubts over the offer of plans/ packages were clarified by the Customer care executives on 28.03.2019, 20.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 and contents of these calls have not been rebutted by the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention that it is a cardinal principle of law that one who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt. In this case, the complainant has not filed on record any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations. In the absence of cogent, credible and adequate documentary evidence, no deficiency of service has been observed on the part of the OPs as far as the allegations of Complainant pertaining to offers/ plans/ packages are concerned.

7.            However, it has also been observed that the Complainant has also sent emails to the OPs on 29.03.2019 and 03.04.2019 which has not been replied by the OPs. Whereas the OPs were supposed to give timely reply to clear the doubt of the Complainant in writing, the OPs have failed to do so which amounts to deficiency of service.  On this point deficiency of service on the part of OPs, compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only) is awarded in favour of the Complainant. Therefore, we direct the OPs (M/s Tata Sky Ltd.-Now Tata Play Ltd.) to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only), jointly or severally, to the complainant within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

8.            Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

                        ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                                           DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR                                Member                                                                                                   President       

   DCDRC-1 (North)                                                                                DCDRC-1 (North)