DATE OF FILING : 19-02-2013.
DATE OF S/R : 05-04-2013.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29-04-2013.
Swagata Chowdhury,
w/o. Ram Narayan Chowdhury,
residing at flat no. RR/5, 193, Andul Road
Government Rental Housing Estate, P.S. Shibpur,
P.O. Danesh Sheikh Lane,
Howrah – 711 109.----------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
The Manager,
Tata Sky,
a company having its registered office
at 3rd floor, Wadia International Centre
( Bombay Dying ) Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai – 400 025.
The Manager,
Om Lucky Centre,
a dealer engaged in the business
dealing in Tata Sky Dish TV
having its retail shop
at 51/2/2, Botanic Garden Road,
Howrah – 711 103. ------------------------------------------------PPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
Complainant, Mrs. Swagata Chowdhury by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P.
Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P.1 to provide uninterrupted service through satellite dish T.V. connection in question and to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost along with other relief as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one Tata Sky Dish T.V.
i.e., manufactured by O.P. no. 1, from the retail shop of o.p. no. no. 2, dealing in Tata Sky Satellite Box, dish etc. on payment of Rs. 1,690/- on 14-09-2012 vide Annexure ‘A’ cash memo dated 04-09-2012 being subscriber I.D. NO. 1090103506. Even after the assurance given by O.P. no. 2 that installation would be made within 24 hours, the service men of O.P. no. 1 actually visited her residence on the next day to install the satellite box and dish antenna of Tata Sky. But when the box was placed before her, she found that seal of the box was tampered. As it was written on the box that ‘Do not accept it if the seal is broken’, complainant refused to accept the same. Even after putting much pressure by the O.Ps., complainant did not agree to accept the same, a sealed and packed box was given after some days but Dish T.V. connection was provided after two days of installation although there was an assurance that within two hours, it would commence vide Annexure ‘B’. It is further alleged that O.P. no. 2 intentionally was locking and deactivating her digi-card and as a result she could not watch any Dish TV programme and always black screen appeared on the TV, except AV mode which is meant for watching VCD or DVD although green signal was appearing on the satellite box. So, the complainant complained it to the O.P. no. 2 but no fruitful result came up. Complainant also submitted that it is the common knowledge that in Dish TV Tata Sky, the TV screen never becomes black and even at the stage of technical fault, it would show in writing the particular fault to the consumer, if any. But O.Ps. from the very first day of installation were disturbing her smooth and trouble-free enjoyment of dish TV programme by way of frequent and repeated interruption and delinking her digi-card. So, she sent e/mails to O.P. no.1 vide annexure copy of those e-mails requesting for the smooth and trouble free service. But all went in vain. Lastly when she lodged complaint with O.P. no. 1, over phone O.P. no. 1 enquired whether servicemen should come to her residence. Complainant asked them to come and repair the technical fault at the time when problem arises i.e., at the time of black-screen stage. Then she was told that for that purpose if service-man comes, they would charge Rs. 150/- without any repair work and proper receipt. According to the complaint, it is nothing but unfair trade practice adopted by O.P. no. 1, as immediate post-sales service is a duty of O.P. no. 1. To check her equipments, she even brought another known Tata Sky Customer’s digi card and when it was installed in her satellite box, surprisingly, the black TV screen disappeared, T.V. programmes were on and everything was o.k. And when that digi-card was removed and her own digi-card is placed in the box, again same black screen appeared and complainant could not watch any programme, which is nothing but intentional harassment by O.P. 1. As on 16-01-2013, the recharging date for her digi-card was due, there was no trouble at all from 14-01-2013 onwards, because it was known to the persons of O.P. no. 1 very well that without her digi-card connection and activation, she would not be able to recharge her card. Immediately after recharging the same, the problem arose and continued. Finding no other alternative and being totally aggrieved with the service of O.P. no. 1, complainant filed this instant case praying for aforesaid relief.
3. Notices were served upon O.Ps. But none appears on behalf of either of the O.Ps. Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.
Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Complainant filed
affidavit in support of her allegations made out in her petition. O.Ps. have not filed any written version controverting the allegations levelled against them by the complainant which shows beyond any doubt that they have nothing to put forward in their favour. We have carefully gone through the e-mails dated 14-01-2013 sent by O.P. no. 1 in reply to the complainant’s e-mails dated 09-01-2013 and 11-01-2013 where O.P. no. 1 had stated that they were trying their level best to contact the complainant over the given mobile no. being 9674058721 but they failed to have any contact with the complainant through that number and obviously in every reply O.P. no. 1 gave a reminder to the complainant about the balance amount of her digi card account which would fall due for recharging on 16-01-2013. Here, we like to put one single question to O.P. no. 1, does it not their only duty to provide smooth and trouble free service to the complainant at least upto 15-01-2013 when they took first recharge amount of Rs. 691/- on 14-09-2012. O.Ps. have forgotten that consumer satisfaction constitutes a very integral part of their business. Not only they are deficient in providing service, they have also adopted unfair trade practice, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. As they never filed any written version, the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged and uncontroverted.
Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with costs against O.Ps.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 45 of 2013 ( HDF 45 of 2013 ) be allowed ex parte with costs against the O.Ps.
That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to provide smooth and trouble-free service through the digi card having subscriber I.D. No. 1090103506 as long as the complainant is regularly recharging the same from the date of this order i.d. Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon O.Ps. till the date of providing proper and smooth service. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay jointly and severally an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost within one month from this order i.d., 10% p.a. interest shall be imposed on the entire amout of Rs. 3,000/- till actual payment.
The complainants are at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
