Complaint filed on: 09.05.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 30.06.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.927/2013

DATED THIS THE 30^th JUNE OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.Unni Krishnan

s/o Raja Gopalan,

Aged about 42 years,

R/at no.43, 10^th main,

ISRO layout, Prashanthi nagar, Bengaluru-78

By Advocates

M/s. The Firm Advocates

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

The Manager,

Customer Care Centre,

Bharthi Airtel Ltd.,

No.70, Upper Ground Floor, Kempe Gowda Road Circle, Bengaluru

By Adv. Sri.B.J.Mahesh

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service against the Opposite party in relocation DTH connection to his new residence from earlier residence and thereby has claimed the reliefs of:

1. Getting refund of Rs.2,890/- towards disconnection of DTH connection and return of set top box
2. Refund of balance amount of Rs.900/-
3. Damages of Rs.1 lakh as compensation
4. Cost of proceedings  

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that during October 2012 he got “Airtel DTH Connection” to his house at Subramanyapura of Bengaluru city on payment of Rs.2,890/- towards installation and set top box. On 29.04.13 he requested relocation of DTH connection to his new house at Isro layout, Prashanthi nagar, Bengaluru from Subramanyapura post, Bengaluru with effect from 01.05.13. At the advice of the Opposite party he registered his complaint on 30.04.13 under intimation to them and received SMS with code no.479. The Opposite party did not contact later at any time and neglected to provide service to him. On 03.05.13 when contacted again advised him to register fresh complaint assuring within 24 hours it would be relocated and it was also not complied. Hence there is deficiency in their service which makes him to file this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party has filed the version contending that complaint is not maintainable in view of decision reported in 2009 AIR SCW-5631 NC, as the remedy is u/s 7B of Indian Telegraph Act. The payment of Rs.2,890/- was towards activation charges which includes installation of subscription charges and it does not include the cost of control unit, dish, connector and other allied equipments. Shifting/relocation should be made on payment of requisite charges subject to condition that new installation address is technically and operationally a feasible area. It was informed to the Complainant for compliance from his side. But the Complainant by lodging one more complaint dtd.13.05.13 insisted that he would make the payment of charges only after completion of the shifting work to his satisfaction which goes against the terms & conditions to provide the services. On 04.05.13 its officials informed the Complainant to pay the requisite charges atleast at the time of installation to do the needful for which he has not responded even to repeated reminders every day till 07.05.13. On 30.05.13 he sought for disconnection and accordingly disconnection was made but he did not allow to take back the equipments so that they could process for refund of the balance amount but insisted to refund the entire amount of Rs.2,890/-. By suppressing the true facts this complaint is filed on false, untenable grounds. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

          4. The Complainant and the official of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 form which is almost invisible. No documents were produced by the Opposite party.  Written arguments were filed by both parties. Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite party in not shifting the DTH connection from earlier house of Subramanyapura layout to new house at Isro layout ?  
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant had availed the Airtel DTH Connection in October 2012 to his house on V.V.Nagar, Subramanyapura, Bengaluru on payment of Rs.2,890/-. In support of the same he has produced the Xerox copy of the customer relationship form which do not disclose the filled up entries and it became invisible.

          8. The Complainant requested for shifting of the DTH connection to his new house at 10^th main, Isro Layout, Prashanthinagar, Bengaluru 78, with effect from 01.05.13 and he had to register his request thrice on 29.04.13 & on 30.04.13 and also on 03.05.13 and later has made allegations that the clause no.6.5, 8.1, 23 of terms & conditions regarding the relocation of DTH service were violated by the Opposite party and thereby there is deficiency in service and hence he is entitled to claim refund of the paid amount of Rs.2,890/-.

          9. In affidavit evidence also he has reiterated the same version. The terms & conditions of the produced single document of the Complainant at 6.5 shows that the customer has confirmed and agreed to pay the rate card but limited to the installation charges, activation charges, charges for any service calls made by the engineer for any work connected with the installation. Condition no.8.1 says that the customer can request for relocate to new address and then removal of equipment shall be at the expense of customer and with the approval of airtel.  The condition no.8.2 says that the customer shall register the request for renewed installation and the Opposite party may charge prescribed fee for carrying out the installation at the new address and then all conditions for installation of new connection shall mutatis mutandis is apply to shift the process. Clause 23 says that 90% of the Complainants were attended within 48 hours of receipt of complaints and complaints from remote/ill tracks/rural areas/disturbances may be redressed whenever feasible.

          10. On the basis of the above conditions and terms, the Opposite party has demanded the payment for requisite charges for shifting of the same within 2 days. The Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has complied the directions of the Opposite party and has allowed them to take back the disconnected units, so as to proceed further for settlement. The mere oral allegations without having any documentary evidence does not amount to proof to presume the noncompliance by the Opposite party. When the terms & conditions are very clear that the shifting charges have to be met by the customer, tt is for the Complainant to make payments and to establish before the forum. Without doing so he has no right to seek the reliefs sought for in the complaint. There is no rebuttal evidence about the allegations made by the Opposite party against the Complainant. Thereby all these points are remained not proved and do not help the Complainant to prove this Consumer Dispute. Accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 answered in the negative.

          11. Consumer Dispute No.2: In view of findings of the Consumer Dispute No.1 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.927/2013 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 30^th June of 2017).

Copy of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party