Delhi

East Delhi

CC/619/2014

SANJEEV NIRWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA SKY - Opp.Party(s)

10 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESDSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC NO.619/14

 

SANJEEV NIRWANI

S/O SHRI S.C. NIRWANI

22, MAUSAM VIHAR, DELHI-110051

 

                                                                                               Complainant

                                                      Vs

 

 

M/S TATA SKY LTD.

NORTH BROADCAST CENTRE

MANDI ROAD, CHATTARPUR,

DELHI-110030

 

    

                                                 DATE OF ADMISSION-09.07.2014

DATE OF ORDER        -15.02.2016

 

O R D E R

 

SH.N.A ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This Complaint has been filed with the allegation that the Complainant is a consumer of the Respondent under subscriber No.1013923931 for the last six years. The Complainant has two set top boxes in two rooms in his house and he has paid Rs.3000/- each. The Respondent promised to provide service connection throughout life subject to payment of subscription charges. He purchased three set top boxes against return of previous set top boxes and paid Rs.6,000/- each. He was placed in members of TATA SKY Premium Club, lastly his subscription was renewed on 23/05/2014 and he paid Rs.5,000/-. The Respondent stopped giving signals to the three connections from the night of 30/05/2014. The complaint was lodged on help line number18605005533. On 31/05/2014, it was informed that two dish antennas have got damaged due to faulty installation and both of them need replacement. The Respondent assured they will be replaced within 48 hours. The Service Engineer visited the house of the Complainant without carrying new Dish Antenna and told that he has no instruction of replacement of two antennas. Despite his E-mails and phone calls the service was not restored. Exasperated Complainant requested the Respondent to close all the three connections and refund the sum lying in deposit and to collect the STB boxes against the refund and cost of these boxes. The Respondent made some procedural calls but they never resolved the problem. They have been deficient in providing the service. The Complainant has prayed for the refund of the entire sum deposited and for refund all the charges for period after 30/05/2014 and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

          Respondent filed their reply wherein it has been admitted that the Complainant is a customer of Respondent for six years. The Respondent has provided excellent service throughout. This is also admitted that on 30/05/2014 he was not receiving signals. The Antenna was broken due to inclement weather, storm and heavy rains and not due to any fault of Respondents. They tried to resolve the issue without wasting time. The stoppage of service was beyond the control of the Respondent. Interruption of the service was huge on account of storm. The subscription agreement has a condition that in such case Respondent cannot be held liable. The Service Engineer visited the house of the Complainant on 01/06/2014 and made realignment but the Complainant insisted to provide the new Dish Antenna without any charges. The Dish Antenna was not required to be replaced in the case of the Complainant. The service of the Complainant was restored. The Complainant requested for the credit for the non viewing days and the same was credited in the subscription account and the complaint raised on 31/05/2014 was closed. The Respondent offered to replace the Dish Antenna at their own cost but Complainant insisted of Rs.20,000/- damages which was frivolous claim. The two STB’s are the property of the Respondent which are still under the possession of the Complainant. Complainant was advised to install HD PVR STB at cost of Rs.4,940/- and not at Rs.6,000/- as alleged, recharge of Rs.1,000/- and recharge of Rs.4,000/- on 29/05/2014 was done by the Complainant. Rest all the allegations have been denied.

          Both the parties have filed their respective affidavit in evidence.

          Heard and perused the record.

          An application was moved by the Complainant u/s 13 (4) II for direction to the Respondent for discovery and production of the documents which includes the statement of account for transaction between Complainant and Respondent.

          The statement showing the sale of STB’s by the Respondent to the Complainant, all the contracts and agreement with the Respondent signed by the Complainant, Annexure-OP-1 & OP-2 mentioned in Para-1 in reply calls logs dated 31/05/2014 with work order and satisfaction report etc. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent stated at the bar on 23/04/2015 that the documents sought to be discovered by the Complainant is more than six years old and the company does not keep documents for such a long period, if there are any documents available that will be filed on record. The Respondent filed on record the installation work order, terms and condition in respect of the hardware warranty and photographs of the damaged Antennas. They have also filed the statement of account of the period of 01/06/2008 to 30/06/2008 and up to 01/04/2013 to 30/04/2013 other statements from 01/04/2015 to 31/05/2015 have also been filed. This statement shows that recharge bonus payment was made on 09/05/2013 there was on line recharge on 09/05/2013 of Rs.601/-. The main question is, if the Respondent failed in their obligation to get these STB’s boxes checked and set Antennas in order when the transmission was affected on 30/05/2014. The document filed from the side of the Respondent does not reflect that the service to the connection of the Complainant was restored and he was in a position to watch the programme using the Antenna which was installed at the residence by the Complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that on 30/05/2014 there was huge storm which has caused damage to the Antenna and on receiving the complaint the mechanic was deputed and he made the connection of the Complainant operational. With the Affidavit of the Respondent documents has been filed to substantiate the arguments that on 30/05/2014 Delhi Storm has killed people, flights were diverted, due to falling of trees from 4.05 pm normal life was thrown out of gear. The account activity from 01/06/2014 to 30/06/2014 has also been filed showing transactions on 01/07/2014. This statement does not reflected that after 30/05/2014 when this connection was claimed to be made operational the Complainant started using TATA SKY set top boxes. The Respondent has also filed the documents sent to the Complainant on 21/07/2014 acknowledging that free Dish Antenna replacement will be press towards the connection of the Complainant and regret to extend the compensation value of Rs.20,000/-. The Ld. Counsel for the Complainant argued on strength of these documents that the Dish Antenna was not in working condition and that is because of the fact that they agreed to replace the Dish Antenna. There is no satisfactory explanation on record from the side of the Respondent for not restoring the service of the Complainant connection immediately after the complaint. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that this fact is admitted to the Complainant that their technician did visit the site when these Antennas are installed and tried to restore the service. The report prepared by him clearly establishes that complaint was promptly attended. The Complainant submitted that there is no signature of the Complainant on any such report nor it has been placed on record. The installation work order has been placed on record by the Respondent and it hs been emphasized by the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent that the Complainant has signed confirming that he have wrote and under stood all condition set out in these subscription contract and have agreed to abide by them. No such agreement has been filed on record which bears the signature of the Complainant. As such the hardware warranty terms of condition section 13 which deals deactivation and cancellation will not be binding upon the Complainant, secondly these conditions gives right to the Respondent to deactivate and cancel if the condition enumerated in these Para’s are not fulfilled by the Complainant. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent argued that condition No.3.7 empowers the Respondent to forfeit available balance in the account of the Complainant. As has been observed above since these terms and conditions are not agreed upon by the Complainant as not signed by him, no benefit cannot be availed by the Respondent of any said condition. This fact is admitted to the Respondent that the Complainant has deposited the amount for three set top boxes and that is in deposit with the Respondent. The Complainant has asked for the refund of that amount since the Respondent has not provided the service and failed in his obligation to provide the uninterrupted service, even if damage was due to unforeseen circumstances in a reasonable time. The Complainant was within his right to ask for refund of the money.

          We allow this complaint. We direct the Respondent to refund to the Complainant the total cost deposited by the Complainant in respect of the three set top boxes together with 9% interest there on from the date of filing this complaint till the amount is finally paid. The amount of Rs.4,925/- should be refunded back to the complainant with 9% interest thereon till it is finally paid. We further award compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant on account of harassment mental pain and agony and inconvenience caused. This amount should be paid within 45 days from the date of this order. The Complainant shall allow the Respondent to collect their Antenna and STB’s from his residence on depositing the amount as ordered above.

          Let copy of the order be served on both the parties as per rule.

 

 

 

(DR.P.N.TIWARI)                                                                                                     (N.A.ZAIDI)

         MEMBER                                                                                                       PRESIDENT