DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pritpal Singh Matharu s/o Sh.Satpal Singh Matharu, r/o House No.411, Sector 30-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

Tata Sky Ltd., E-46, Eltop Industrial Area, Industrial Area, Phase 8, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160071, through its Director.

……Opposite Party

QUORUM:   P.L.AHUJA                                                  PRESIDENT

                   RAJINDER SINGH GILL                                MEMBER

ARGUED BY : Sh.Vikas Kuthiala, Counsel for complainant.

                       Sh.Amit Arora, Counsel for OP

PER P.L.AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.                Sh.Pritpal Singh Matharu, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Tata Sky Ltd. - Opposite Party (hereinafter called the OP), alleging that he purchased one Tata Sky direct to Home dish network connection from OP in the year 2009 against proper payment. His customer ID Number was 1029489497 and his subscription was valid for a period of one month and renewable upon payment of renewal charges from time to time. It has been contended that the complainant has been regularly and duly paying the renewal charges of the dish network connection to the OP at Chandigarh from time to time. The complainant had paid the renewal charges in advance for uninterrupted and continuous viewing of television programs till midnight of 17/18.5.2012. However, since 17.5.2012 from 9.00 AM in the morning, there was a message stating “urgent payment reminder, payment overdue. Re-charge today to avoid deactivation and temporary suspension fee” on the screen of the TV of the complainant, which was covering most of the screen and that too in the middle of the screen. The viewing of TV was deliberately obstructed by OP. The entire family of the complainant could not watch the TV program throughout the entire day. Some guests of the complainant also came in the evening on 17.5.2012 and the said message also caused a great deal of humiliation and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant lodged a complaint with the OP on local helpline number, copy of which is Annexure C-1, regarding their deficient services. On 20.5.2012, the complainant also served a legal notice – Annexure C-2 on the OP. Thereafter, again on 19.6.2012 a similar message for payment reminder appeared on the TV screen of the complainant throughout the day. The copy of the complaint made on 21.6.2012 is Annexure C-3. The complainant submitted again a complaint on 2.7.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-4. The OP sent a reply to the legal notice dated 20.5.2012 on 3.7.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-5, wherein, it was admitted that the message for payment reminder appeared throughout the day on 17.5.2012 on the TV screen of the complainant by mistake due to technical error on 17.5.2012. Once again on 4.7.2012 the same message appeared on the screen of the TV covering most of the screen and the copy of the complaint is Annexure C-6. The complainant has alleged grave deficiency and unfair trade practice against the OP. The complainant has made a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.9,000/- to him towards subscription charges along with interest, compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment, mental agony and sufferings, apart from litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/-.

2.                OP in its reply has admitted that the complainant had paid in advance the due and complete subscription for uninterrupted and continuous viewing of the DTH services of the OP till midnight of 17.5.2012. It has been averred that the services of the complainant were not deactivated on 17.5.2012 and on the screen display was only a reminder to recharge the subscription account. It has been admitted that the complainant lodged a complaint to the local helpline number of OP with respect to the on screen message. It has been stated that as per records maintained by the OP, on 17.5.2012 and 18.5.2012 the customer care executive of the OP explained the whole situation of technical error in the system of the OP and informed the complainant that the same would be rectified at the earliest. It has been averred that the services of the OP are prepaid services and the customers are required to recharge and maintain a minimum account balance in his/her subscriber account to continue obtaining the services of the OP. It has been further stated that the grievance of the complainant is not tenable as the payment reminder displayed on the screen of the subscriber is usually translucent in form and does not obstruct the viewing of the television channels available. The reminder is displayed on the screen solely for the benefit of the subscriber(s) who may recharge their prepaid account on Tata Sky to get continuous undisrupted services.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4.                After going through the entire evidence on record, written arguments of the complainant and hearing the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the complaint merits part acceptance.

5.                It is the admitted case of the OP that the subscription of the complainant for DTH service was to expire on the midnight of 17.5.2012. The complainant has not denied that a message was displayed on the TV screen of the complainant since 9 AM on 17.5.2012 till 18.5.2012 stating “urgent payment reminder, payment overdue. Re-charge today to avoid deactivation and temporary suspension fee.”  There is no specific denial in the written statement of the OP that the said message was covering most of the screen and the view of the TV was deliberately obstructed by them. It is also admitted case of the OP that the complainant lodged a complaint to local helpline number of the OP with respect to this said message. The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 20.5.2012 – Annexure C-2 to the OP. He made a second complaint on 21.6.2012, copy of which is Annexure C-3. Then subsequently a similar complaint was made on 2.7.2012 vide Annexure   C-4. The reply to the legal notice was sent by the OP to the complainant only on 3.7.2012 vide Annexure C-5, wherein, it was written that they flash out the reminder on the TV screen on the day where only the minimum subscription balance is left in the subscriber’s account to avoid the inconvenience of suspended television viewing until further recharge. It was also replied that as of last week, the OP had improved and modified this on screen display based on the feedbacks of valued subscribers and programmed it to not block the major part of the TV screen and the said facility had become operational. It is also mentioned in the letter that due to some technical issue the on screen display could not be removed from the TV screen of the complainant until the next day i.e. 18.5.2012, despite the fact that he had recharged his account on 17.5.2012. The OP regretted the inconvenience caused in this regard. However, it is pertinent that the complainant again sent a copy of picture dated 4.7.2012 – Annexure C-6 to the OP, which clearly shows that renewal message, was covering almost whole of the screen of his TV. Despite the fact that the complainant made complaints to the OP in the month of May, June and July , 2012 about flashing of the recharge message and the OP was told that the complainant and his family were prevented from enjoying the services of Tata Sky because the TV screen was covering almost 45% of the screen and that too in the middle of the screen, but still on 4.7.2012 the said renewal message was covering major portion of the screen of the TV of the complainant. We are of the view that if any payment reminder was to be sent to the subscriber, the OP should have ensured that the subscriber and his family members are able to enjoy the TV programs without any obstruction due to that message. In this case, despite the complaints made by the complainant time and again, the OP did not take any early action. It is their admitted case that due to some technical issue, the on screen display could not be removed from the TV screen of the complainant till the next date i.e. 18.5.2012 despite the fact that he had recharged his account on 17.5.2012. Consequently, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. However, we do not find any just ground to order the OP to refund the entire amount of Rs.9000/- of subscription charges along with interest to the complainant though he is certainly entitled to get compensation on account of deficiency in service on the part of OP for causing irritation and harassment to him and his family members.

6.                For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly allowed. OP is directed to make payment of a composite amount of Rs.7500/- to the complainant towards compensation for humiliation, harassment and inconvenience as well as the litigation expenses.

7.                This order shall be complied with by the OP within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP shall be liable to refund the above said awarded amount to the complainant along with interest    @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, till its realization.

8.                The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.