IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 19th day of April, 2021
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 153/2019 (filed on 25/09/2019)
Petitioner : Poulose V.J.
Valiyaparambil House,
Chemb P.O. Chemb,
Vaikom – 686 608.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Tata Sky Ltd.
Unit 301 to 305,
3rd Floor, Windsor Off,
C.S.T. Road, Kalina,
Santacruz (East), Mumbai
Pin – 400098.
(Adv. Thomas P. Kuruvilla)
2) Yoosaf C.K.
Brothers Stores,
Toll Junction,
K.S. Mangalam, Vaikom.
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 5-9-2017 complainant had availed DTH connection from the first opposite party vide ID no.1239186339. The said connection was linked with the cell phone connection of the complainant. He did not pay the monthly subscription fee for two months from October 2018. During the January 2019 the Manger of the first opposite party contacted the complainant over phone and offered a package for one year for Rs.1600.Beleiving the words of the said manger complainant had recharged the connection through the second opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1600. Thereafter the complainant received a message on his phone stating that his DTH connection is valid up to 13-1-2020. However after three months the connection was disconnected by the first opposite party. When he enquired about this the first opposite party informed him that they were not ready to render their service under the existing package. The connection was restored only when the complainant informed the opposite party that he will take the matter before the consumer forum. It is alleged in the complaint that on 17-9-2019 the said connection was again disconnected by the first opposite party during the existence of package. The opposite parties were not ready and willing to restore their connection. As per the package and assurance given by the opposite party through the message the complainant is entitled for enjoying the service of the opposite party for a further period of 119 days. The complainant had suffered much hardship and loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
Upon notice from this commission first opposite party appeared before this commission and filed version. Though the notice was severed to the second opposite party, second opposite party did not care to appear and contest the case.
Version of the first opposite party is as follows:
The complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party. The complainant has admitted that he did not pay the monthly subscription for 2 months after October, 2018. The customer service care executive of the first opposite party spoke about complainant on 14-1-2019 with regard to the status of the subscription account, and during the said call the complainant was informed about offers available at that time which could be availed by the complainant. The allegation contrary to this fact is false and denied. Complainant was informed of the available offer at that time along with terms and conditions for availing the said offer, which was until 14-1-2019. The customer service executive further informed the complainant that in order to avail the benefit of the offer the recharge of Rs.1600/- was required to be done on the same day itself. On 14-1-2019 the complainant recharged his subscription account for an amount of Rs.1600. It is submitted that the plan opted by the complainant was a “long term plan” existing at that time, and accordingly the subscription was valid up to 13-1-2020. Admittedly, the complainant started receiving the Tata Sky service upon recharge. Opposite parties under the mandate of the new TRAI Regulations to migrate the subscription to the Best Fit Plan, if they do not choose/modify their existing plans/ packs. It is submitted that the earlier subscribed tariff/LDP (long duration plan ) of the complainant was no longer available on the opposite party’s platform due to the implementation of the new TRAI Regulations, and since the complainant did not exercise his options for channel/packs section as per new TRAI Regulation, the opposite party migrated the complainant to the “Best Fit Plan” as per TRAI’s press release and tried to provide most of the key channels to the complainant as per his previous subscription. It is further submitted that the complainant’s relative by the name Laya was duly informed by the customer care executive of the opposite party over the call on 29-3-2019 that pack modification was done in compliance of the TRAI
Regulations and the differential balance amount from the earlier pack and the Best fit plan, if any was credited in the subscriber’s subscription account, and that they had the option to modify and select the channels /packs of their choice. The relative of the complainant then, with the help of the customer executive, opted for and dropped channels from the subscription account of the complainant.
The complaint is not maintainable as there is no such grievances raised by the complainant which would be redressed by this commission. The complaint is limited to the plea that the complainant’s subscription be put back to the previous tariffs/plan and the same channels/packs to be continued which the opposite party is not in a position to do as it would be in breach of the new agreements signed with the broadcasters and also contrary to the new TRAI regulations. After adjustment of the amount utilized by the complainant for the package availed by him under the old regime, a total amount of Rs.1275.62 had been credited to the complainant’s subscription account on 29-3-2019. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
Evidence of this case consists of deposition of Pw1 and Exhibit A1 from the side of complainant. Chungbiaklun, who is the Assistant General Manager legal filed proof affidavit for and on behalf of the first opposite party and got marked Exhibit B1 to B12.
On evaluation of complaint, version, and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties?
- If so what are the reliefs?
For the sake of convenience we would like to consider the point number 1 and 2 together.
Point No.1 and 2
Undisputedly, the complainant is a consumer of the first opposite party by availing DTH connection from the first opposite party vide ID no. 1239186339. The complainant has admitted that he did not pay the monthly subscription for 2 months after October 2018. It is deposed by Pw1 who is the complainant that persuaded by the offer made by the Manger of the firsts opposite party he had opted for one year subscription of the DTH connection by paying Rs.1600 in January 2019 . Exhibit A1 which is the message sent by the first opposite party to the registered phone number of the complainant proves that on 15-1-2019 the complainant had paid Rs.1600 for Base Pack(south special) and the said package is valid up to 13-1-2020. According to the complainant the connection was disconnected by the opposite party after three months from the date of renewal and the same was restored after his intervention. Pw1 deposed before the commission that again the connection was illegally disconnected by the opposite party on 17-9-2019 while his package was active. On the other hand the opposite party contended that as per the mandate under regulation 45 (3) of the Telecommunications(broadcasting and cable) services standard quality of service and customer protection (addresses systems) regulations 2017 to migrate the subscription to the Best Fit Plan, if they do not choose/modify their existing plans/ packs. It is submitted that the earlier subscribed tariff/LDP (long duration plan) of the complainant was no longer available on the opposite party’s platform due to the implementation of the new TRAI Regulations, and since the complainant did not exercise his options for channel/packs section as per new TRAI Regulation, the opposite party migrated the complainant to the “Best Fit Plan” as per TRAI’s press release and tried to provide most of the key channels to the complainant as per his previous subscription. Exhibit B3 is the copy of the Telecommunications (broadcasting and cable) services standard quality of service and customer protection (addresses systems) regulations 2017. On a mere reading of press release no. 11/2019 which is annexed to Exhibit B3 we can see that the TRAI directed all the Dpos to create “Best Fit Plans” for its subscribers who have not exercises their options yet. It is further directed by the TRAI that the “Best Fit Plan “generally does not exceed the payout per month of existing tariff plan of the subscribers. Exhibit B5 print out of the SMS which were sent by the firs opposite party to the complainant’s registered mobile phone on 27-1-209,28-3-2019,29-3-2019 and 1-4-2019 proves that the change of the plan and the tariff for the same had been duly intimated by the first opposite party to the complainant. Moreover Exhibits B8 and B9 which are the transcript of the call between the customer care executive and complainant and his relative respectively proves that the same was intimated to the complainant. It is evident from exhibit B12 that a total amount of Rs.1275.62 had been credited to the complainant’s subscription account on 29-3-2019. It is proved by Exhibit B5 that the monthly subscription was Rs.180 and the next due date for renewal is 27-10-2019.
Hence we cannot accept the contention of the complainant that the change in the new plan was not informed to him by the complainant. In the light of above discussed evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant is miserably failed to prove his case with cogent evidence. In this circumstances we dismiss the complaint.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of April, 2021.
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Witness from the side of complainant
Pw1 - Paulose
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 - Printout of message dtd.14-01-2019
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 - Authorization letter dtd.2-11-2018
B2 - Copy of extracts of the resolution passed by the board of directors of
Tata Sky ltd.
B3 - Copy of telecom communication (B&CS) standards of QoS and Consumer
Protection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and press release
dtd.12-02-19
B4 - Copy of media coverage (Business today)
B5 - Text of SMS
B6 - Transcript of call recording
B7 – Certificate u/s 65-B(4)(C) of Evidence Act, 1872 dtd.08-02-21
B8 – Transcript of call recording
B9 - Certificate u/s 65-B(4)(C) of Evidence Act, 1872 dtd.08-02-21
B10-Copy of order of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi dtd.15-05-19
B11- Copy of subscription contract
B12-Copy of statement of transaction
By Order
J/4cs Senior Superintendent
