BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 436 of 2015

Date of Institution: 14.07.2015

        Date of Decision  :21.03.2016

Ashok Kumar Popal Advocate S/o Sh. Hans Raj Popal, aged 51 years, resident  of 415-A Block, G.T. Road, New Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

1. Tata Sky Satelite Television Service through its Officer Incharge having its registered office at 3^rd Floor, Bombay Dyeing A.O.Building, Pandurang Budhukar Marg, Worli, Mumbai 400025
2. Tata Sky Satelite Television, District Service Center at Amritsar Punjab through its authorized Incharge/representative at Ist Floor, behind Amrit Talkies, Near Post Office, Amritsar
3. Partap Singh one of a authorized representative/Tata sky Television Connection installer of opposite party No.2 as his service is to be effected at address of opposite party No.2

       Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                             : In person

                For the Opposite Party No.1               : Sh. Ajay Shanker,Advocate

               For Opposite parties No.2 & 3   : Ex-parte

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh. Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Ashok Kumar under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that through online he placed an order to opposite party No.1 for installation of Tata Sky Television Connection in May, 2015. According to the complainant opposite party No.2, who  is an authorized representative of opposite party No.1 sent opposite party No.3 on 17.5.2015 for installation this connection , who after installation charged Rs. 200/- for wire and Rs. 4100/- for HD Television Connection Service  of one year subscription from the complainant. Opposite parties gave service of all telephone HD channels to the complainant only for 15 days. Thereafter the complainant made complaint to opposite parties  that as they charged subscription of all HD channels for one year started from 17.5.2015 to 16.5.2016 but they are providing HD Television service only for 10 selected network. The complainant also registered his complaint online to opposite parties on 8.6.2015, 13.6.2015 and 15.6.2015, who made  a fake reply that he is not subscriber of all HD Television channels. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to continue all HD Television Channels network from the date of installation i.e. 17.5.2015 to 16.5.2016. Compensation of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, opposite party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that prior to installation and activation of the account, the complainant was duly informed about the genres/channels which would be part of the pack proposed to be opted by the complainant  including the fact that under the Annual HD free pack 11 HD channels would be provided to the complainant. It was submitted that complainant was informed that he would get all the channels on Tata Sky free of cost till 31.5.2015. The information about the summer bonanza offer was also communicated to all the subscribers through Channel No. 100 whereby it was clearly informed that under a summer bonanza offer, all channels available on Tata Sky shall be made available to all Tata Sky Subscribers free of cost from 10.5.2015 till 31.5.2015. In May 2015, opposite party received an order from the complainant for the installation of Tata Sky connection. Accordingly as per request of the complainant, the account of the complainant was activated on 17.5.2015. The complainant had made payment of Rs. 4100/- with Rs. 240/-. The complainant’s account was activated with Annual Dhamaal Mix 2300 Pack and Annual Free HD Access ( under which 11 HD channels would be provided) alongwith Punjabi and Hindi Regional Free pack . Complainant raised a complaint on 13.6.2015 and he was explained by the installed about the services available on the plans opted by the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of installation letter Ex.C-2.
4. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence copy of statement Ex.OP1/1
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the  complainant and ld.counsel for opposite party No.1 and  have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant and  opposite party No.1 with the valuable assistance of the complainant and ld.counsel for the opposite party No.1.

6.       From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the complainant and opposite party No.1, it is clear that complainant got installed Tata Sky Television connection at his residence in May 2015 vide ID No. 1152966113. The opposite party charged Rs. 200/- for wire and Rs. 4100/- for HD Television connection service for one year vide receipt Ex.C-2. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties gave service of all Television HD channels  to the complainant only for 15 days. The complainant made complaint to the opposite parties that they had charged subscription for all HD channels for one year starting from 17.5.2015 to 16.5.2016 but they are providing HD Television Service only for 10 selected channels. The complainant got registered his complaint online to the opposite party on 8.6.2015, 13.6.2015 and 15.6.2015 but the opposite parties gave fake reply that the complainant is not subscriber of all HD Television Channels. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties have charged Rs. 4100/- for HD Television Connection service for one year for all HD Television channels but they are not providing service of all HD Television channels. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.

7.       Whereas the case of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant paid Rs. 4100/- and Rs. 240/- for Annual Dhamaal Mix pack which was activated with Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack and Annual Free HD Access (under which 11 HD channels would be  provided) alongwith Punjabi and Hindi Regional Free Pack in terms of the package opted by the complainant. The complainant was duly informed about the genres/channels which could be part of the pack. The opposite party has further submitted that all its subscribers were provided with facility of all HD channels free of cost in the month of May 2015 under a summer bonanza offer. So the opposite party has given service of 11 HD channels to the complainant under Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant got installed  Tata Sky Television Connection from the opposite party vide ID No.1152966113 w.e.f. 17.5.2015. The opposite party  vide receipt Ex.C-2 charged Rs. 200/- for wire and Rs. 4100/- for HD service for a period of one year i.e. from 17.5.2015 to 16.5.2016 . As per this receipt Ex.C-2, the opposite party was bound to provide HD TV service to the complainant for one year , but the opposite party provided service for all HD channels for 15 days only. Thereafter the opposite party gave service of only 10 selected HD channels to the complainant. The opposite party has submitted that the complainant had opted for Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack under which only 11 selected HD Television service is to be provided. The opposite party has further submitted that in the month of May 2015 all the subscribers were given free of cost all HD channels services. So for 15 days, the complainant was given service of all HD channels as is evident from statement Ex.OP1/1. The opposite party could produce only statement of account of the complainant but the opposite party could not produce any evidence that the complainant has opted for Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack because on the receipt Ex.C-2 nowhere it has been mentioned that the complainant has opted for Annual Dhamaal Mix Pack nor the opposite party could produce any option given by the complainant  for this pack nor the opposite party could produce any brochure that the opposite party has provided to all its subscribers free of cost all HD channels facility in the month of May 2015 only. So the opposite party has failed to produce any evidence on record that the complainant was to be provided service of only 11 selected HD channels or that the opposite party provided service of all HD channels to the complainant for 15 days only under a special pack in the month of May 2015. Whereas the receipt Ex.C-2 given by the opposite party fully proves that the opposite party has charged one year subscription fee from the complainant which included Rs. 4100/- for all HD Television channels services to the complainant for one year i.e. from 17.5.2015 to 16.5.2016. So the opposite party was not justified in not providing HD channels services of all HD channels  to the complainant and they wrongly stopped this service to the complainant after providing the same for 15 days only.

9.       Resultantly we partly allow the complaint with costs and the opposite parties are directed to provide all HD channels service  on the Tata Sky Television connection of the complainant upto 16.5.2016 as they had already charged for HD service from the complainant vide receipt Ex.C-2. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 1000/- to the complainant. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

21.03.2016                                                           ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                        ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)           (Anoop Sharma)

Member                         Member