Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/45

Dilbagh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Sky Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Dalip Garg, ADv.

29 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 45 of 12.01.2016

Date of Decision            :   29.08.2016

 

Dilbagh Singh Johal son of S.Balbir Singh, resident of 15-A, Rakh Bagh, Mall Road, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s Tata Sky Ltd., Regd. Office, Tata Sky Limited, 3^rd Floor, C-1, Wadia International Center (Bombay Dyeing), Pandurang, Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025; Local Address Tata Sky Limited, SCF 23-24, Model Town Extension, Block-D, Ludhiana-141002 through its Manager/Incharge/Authorized Person.

2.M/s Video Visions Sales Corporation, Kailash Cinema Chowk, Ludhiana through its Partner/Prop./Authorized Dealer.

…Opposite parties

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.KARNAIL SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :         Sh.S.S.Grewal, Advocate       

For OP1                         :         Sh.Suresh Kumar Shounik, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Ex-parte.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant Sh.Dilbagh Singh Johal filed complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in short referred to as ‘Act’) against Ops by claiming that he being resident of H.No.15-A, Rakh Bagh, Mall Road, Ludhiana, purchased Tata Sky Dish TV connection from OP1 through OP2 on payment of Rs.1890/- vide receipt No.465 dated 21.12.2015. Tata Sky Dish connection was installed at the above said residence. However, the complainant required dish TV services for room of his staff at the above said residence and that is why he purchased another connection of Tata Sky Dish TV services on 22.12.2015 from OP1 through OP2 vide receipt No.473 dated 22.12.2015. Engineer/representative of OPs visited the residence of complainant on 22.12.2015 for installation of dish for the room staff of the complainant and after surveying, they disclosed as if the dish cannot be installed at the roof of the room of the staff because there was no signal available due to thick trees around the said room. They disclosed that dish TV can be availed for room of staff as ‘add on connection’ from the dish installed at the residential house of the complainant on payment of charges of cable. Complainant agreed for the same and then the said engineer/representative of OPs released ‘add on connection’ for dish TV services in the room of staff. Cable was laid from the dish installed in the room of the complainant upto room of the staff on payment  of Rs.200/- to the representative/engineer of OPs. No dish was installed on the staff room. Complainant was informed that amount of Rs.1490/- deposited for the purchase of dish paid on 22.12.2015 shall be adjusted towards ‘add on connection’ of the installed dish at the house of complainant on 21.12.2015. Representative of OPs approached the complainant on 4.1.2016 for claiming that ‘add on connection’ cannot be released from the dish installed at the house of the complainant because amount of Rs.1490/- deposited for the purchase of dish for staff room of complainant cannot be converted into for the purpose of ‘add on connection’. Ops refused to adjust the amount of Rs.1490/-, despite the fact that second dish has not been provided. So by pleading deficiency in service and by claiming mental and physical harassment, refund of Rs.1490/- along with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by Op1, it is claimed that averments contained in complaint are denied and there has been no negligence and deficiency in service or of act of adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. Besides, it is claimed that complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer. It is claimed that the complainant has failed to disclose the nexus between the claimed damages and the sustained injuries. Prayer made for dismissal of complaint in limine. Admittedly, Tata Sky connection of the complainant was activated on 21.12.2015 under the subscriber ID 1172833350. Further, it is claimed that on request of complainant, another Tata Sky connection was activated in the complainant’s name on 22.12.2015 under the subscriber ID 1172965046. Second connection was availed by the complainant for the staff member residing at his house. Complainant never put forth the request for merging of the second connection with first connection and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP1. On initial request of the complainant, two separate connections with two separate subscription IDs were released and activated. If complainant would have ever approached  OP1 for merging two connections in one subscription ID, then the same would have been done immediately by OP1. On filing of this complaint alone, OP1 got the knowledge as if the complainant intends to merge  both connections with one subscription      ID. So, no cause of action was subsisting on the date of filing of the complaint. After getting of knowledge that the complainant wants to merge both his connections under one subscription ID. Op1 offered their readiness and willingness to merge the two connections under one subscription ID. Each and every other averment of the complainant denied.

3.                Op2 is ex-parte in this case, despite the fact that earlier Sh.Jivtesh Kumar appeared on behalf of OP2.

4.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and thereafter, his counsel closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Gyaltsen G Barfungpa, Assistant General Manager of OP1 and then closed the evidence.

6.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. But oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

7.                Contents of the pleadings of the parties and of receipt Ex.A1 establishes that complainant got activated Tata Sky Dish TV connection on 21.12.2015 for his residence. Further, contents of pleadings establishes that on 22.12.2015, the complainant deposited Rs.1490/- with OP2 through receipt Ex.A2 for availing second dish TV connection for the staff deputed at his residence. In para no.4 of the complaint, it is specifically mentioned that engineer/representative of OP after visiting the house, found that due to thick trees around the staff room, the second connection cannot be installed and that is why, services of ‘add on connection’ was availed by the complainant for the staff room. That fact pleaded in para no.4 of the complaint not specifically denied in the corresponding paras of the written statement filed by OP1 or through affidavit Ex.RA of Assistant General Manager. Whatever is not specifically denied, the same to be deemed to be admitted and as such, it is established that second connection for the staff room at the house of the complainant was not released due to   location of the same room under the cover of thick trees. That technical glitch was to be observed by the staff of OPs after visiting the spot and not by the complainant. So, if Rs.1490/- has been got received from the complainant through receipt Ex.A2 by OP2 for the release of second connection, then fault lay with OP2 in accepting that amount. Rather, OP2 should have accepted that amount of Rs.1490/- for the installation of second normal box only after finding that second connection could have been installed at the desired place of staff room. Had that precaution been observed by the representative of OP2, then certainly amount of Rs.1490/- must not have been got deposited by OP2 as the price of normal box as endorsed on top of Ex.A2.

8.                Technicalities of installation or non installation of second set top box for the second connection must have been observed by the staff of OPs. Even an educated person except the expert in the line, could not have known that second connection in the same premises could not have been installed due to enclosure of the room concerned in the cluster of thick trees. So, act of acceptance of Rs.1490/- for the second connection is an unfair trade practice on the part of OPs because whatever services could not have been provided logistically or technically, charges for the same must not have been accepted.

9.                It is vehemently contended by counsel for OP1 that ‘add on connection’ was never applied by the complainant and that is why refund of Rs.1490/- should not be ordered. However, it certainly is a case of providing of services through ‘add on connection’ because installation of second dish at staff room at the house of the complainant not took place is a fact borne from the contents of affidavit Ex.CA of complainant and that fact of installation of the second dish connection even not claimed through affidavit Ex.RA of OP1. Besides, OP1 through written statement itself pleaded that without prejudice to its rights and contentions in the present complaint, OP is ready and willing to merge the two connections under one subscription ID. Such offer of merger of two connections certainly has been put forth after realizing that installation of two connections in the same premises not possible. In view of this offer of merger     of two connections under one subscription ID, it is obvious that amount of Rs.1490/- through receipt Ex.A2 claimed illegally by OPs knowing fully well that second dish TV connection cannot be provided. As the ‘add on connection’ alone availed by the complainant and as such, the complainant not liable to pay for the second normal box charges of Rs.1490/-.

10.              After Google Internet Search, it is found that access Tata Sky on multiple televisions at home is permissible. As per that print of Google Internet Search (now made a part of this file), it is made out that subscription charges for the first connection are applicable as per the selected package, but the services for the second, third and fourth connection via MultiTV connections can be availed on first package itself. The MultiTV connection charges for the standard services is Rs.1600/-, but standard charges for each MultiTV connections is Rs.240/- monthly as per the print got from the Google Internet Search. Being so, Rs.1890/- virtually collected from the complainant for providing first MultiTV connection, but the second connection services on the same package can be availed on the Multiple television connections and as such, also charging of Rs.1490/- through receipt Ex.A2 is an act of unfair trade practice. Owing to extra charging of Rs.1490/-, complainant suffered mentally because of harassment caused by the OPs and as such, complainant deserves to be compensated reasonably for such mental sufferings. Complainant engaged counsel for filing this complaint and as such, he is also entitled for the litigation expenses.

11.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that Ops will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.1490/- (received through receipt Ex.A2), to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation for mental harassment and sufferings to the complainant along with litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-  (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OPs. As Rs.1490/- charged excess by OP2 for the benefit of OP1 and as such, liability of OPs adjudged as joint and several. Payment of above referred amounts be made by Ops to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

12.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

          (Karnail Singh)                                  (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                              President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.08.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.