DATE OF FILING : 29-09-2011
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19-03-2012
Sri Shashi Kant Pandey
38/40, Fakir Bagan Lane, 3rd Floor
P.S. Golabari, Dist.-Howrah-711 101.------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT(S)
Versus -
The Manager,Food Bazar,
a retail outlet of Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. (Fortune Group_
Municipal Premises, No.-4/B/1, Salkia School Road,
Dist. Howrah – 711 101.
The Managing Director, & Group Ch. Exec. Officer
Pantaloon Retail (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Fortune Group)
Sobo Central, 5th Floor,
84, Pt. Madan Mohan Malabya Marg, Tardeo,
Mumbai-400 034, Maharastra.
The Chairman & Managing Director,
Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Qutab Ambience, H-5/12 Mehrauli Road,
New Delhi-110 070.
The Chairmen & Managing Director,
Bharti Airtel Ltd.
Arabali Crecent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road
Basant Kunj, Phase-II,
New Delhi-110 070. --------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY(S)
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya.
2. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the Complainant : Mainak Kr. Banerjee, Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the O.Ps. : Sanjay Ray (autho Rep. of O.Ps.-1 & 2 )
Ritabrata Banerjee, Ld. Adv. (O.Ps.-3 & 4)
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainant, Sri Shashikant Pandey U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986, against O.Ps., Food Bazar, a Retail Outlet of Pantaloon Retail (India) Ltd. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. alleging deficiency in service.
The fact of the case, in brief, is that on 26/01/2009 the complainant purchased Airtel Digital TV, a product of Bharti Airtel Ltd. from the O.P.-1 against Rs.1099/- under a special offer announced by the said Food Bazar during the period of January, 2009. The O.P.-1 told the complainant that the said Airtel Digital TV ( DTH )H would be installed in 10 to 12 days from the purchasing date. Unfortunately, none of the representative of O.Ps.-3 and 4 visited the complainant’s premises for installation of the same under the direction of the O.Ps.-1 and 2. Thereafter, on 08/02/2009 the complainant enquired about the non-installation of digital TV before the O.P.-1. Then the O.P.-1 gave a toll free number to the complainant to make a contact for the installation of the same. The complainant awaited for one month and in March, 2009 the complainant went to his native place. After a month when the complainant came back again went to the O.P.-1 to inform that the Airtel digital TV was not installed yet. Again O.P.-1 assured him that the digital TV in question would be installed very soon. Thereafter, again the complainant went to the O.P.-1 several times but in vain. Then the complainant sent e-mail to the O.Ps.-3 and 4 on 20/02/2010. But the complainant did not find any reasonable answer from them. On 11/03/2010 a representative of Bharti Airtel Ltd., Mr. Koushik Das came to the premises of the complainant and installed the STB and dish antenna Airtel digital TV and further demanded Rs.400/- from the complainant as a service charge. But the complainant refused to pay the same. As per instruction of the higher authority Mr. Koushik Das took out the said Set Top Box and Dish Anteena of digital TV. Then the complainant approached O.P.-1 but to no effect. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this Forum.
O.Ps.-1 & 2 and O.Ps.-3 & 4 appeared before the Forum and filed two separate W.V. The content of the O.Ps.-1 and 2 is that the present dispute relates to purchase of Airtel digital TV connection which is a product of Bharti Airtel Ltd. The offer was given by Bharti Airtel Ltd. also. Food Bazar was only a point of purchase of the same product. The entire process of installation of the digital TV connection was carried out by the service provider Bharti Airtel Ltd. (The O.Ps.-3 & 4). The entire process of activating the Airtel digital TV was elaborately given in writing by Bharti Airtel Ltd. to their customers. The installation of that connection falls outside the scope of the O.Ps.-1 and 2. The whole process of installation and subsequent falls under the purview of Bharti Airtel Pvt. Ltd. If any amount was demanded by Mr. Koushik Das it was according to the company policy of O.Ps.-3 and 4. So, there is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.-1 and 2. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the case with an exemplary cost.
The O.Ps.-3 and 4 submitted in their W.V. that the complaint is not maintainable and is barred by principles of waiver, estoppel and principles analogous thereto. The complainant is not a direct customer of O.Ps.-3 and 4. For non-installation of digital TV connection and / or any technical issues, the O.Ps.-1 and 2 would be liable for the same. Moreover, the last date of free installation was sometime in March,2009 wherein the complainant failed to install the connection within that period. The allegations were mainly against the O.Ps.-1 and 2 and no case has been made out against the O.Ps.-3 and 4. As O.Ps.-3 and 4 did not receive any intimation from O.Ps.-1 and 2 under the free installation scheme the O.Ps.-3 and 4 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice. It is pertinent to mention that the O.Ps.-3 and 4 asked for the complainant’s customer ID where it was registered as a normal customer and not under the “Free Installation Scheme”. Moreover, the O.Ps.-3 and 4 showed diligence on their part and sent their personnel to install the digital TV. But when the complainant refused to pay the installation charge the personnel simply followed his protocol. So, the negligence is solely on the part of O.P.s-1 and 2. Therefore, Ld. Councel of O.Ps.-3 and 4 also prayed for dismissal of the case with exemplary cost.
Now two questions arose for determination :
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 the sake of convenience and brevity.
It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased an Airtel digital TV (DTH) from the O.P.-1 on 26/01/2009 against Rs.1099/-. It is also admitted fact that O.Ps.-3 and 4 are the service provider of the said DTH in question. The complainant being a consumer who has paid the full price as quoted in the offer for getting a service from the O.Ps. who are acting in collaboration with each other. The O.Ps. in their W.Vs. had categorically admitted the complainant as a consumer, but they have indulged themselves in passing the bucks upon each other. The O.Ps.-1 and 2 have stated that the service of the installation falls under the obligation of O.P.s-3 and 4. Whereas, the O.P.s-3 and 4 have shifted liability upon the O.Ps.-1 and 2.
Upon the contents of all the parties and perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, we can unequivocally say that there is certainly a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice too on the part of all the O.Ps. The complainant had purchased his DTH on 26/01/2009 and he filed the case before this Forum on 29/09/2011. No documents speak that O.Ps.-1 and 2 have taken any necessary step to redress the complainant. One representative on behalf of O.Ps.-3 and 4 visited the premises of the complainant on 11/03/2010 that is after more than one year. We could not trace a single scrap of paper from where we can conclude that O.Ps.-3 & 4 were diligent to the complainant.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case together with the materials on record the Forum hold and conclude that all the O.Ps. have committed deficiency in service by not giving proper service to the complainant and had not shown any valid reason for the delay. According to Sec.-2(1)(g) of the C. P. Act, 1986 – which clearly defines the meaning of “deficiency” and Sec.-2(1)(o) of the C. P. Act, 1986 – which defines the meaning of “service” there is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Be it mentioned that both sets of O.Ps. viz. O.Ps.-1 & 2 and O.Ps.-3 & 4 admit of deficiency in service but by not themselves. They shelve the responsibility upon the other. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the O.Ps. are definitely responsible for deficiency in service. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get appropriate order in terms of Sec.-14 of the C. P. Act, 1986.
Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
In the result the application succeeds.
Hence,
O r d e r e d
That the C. C. Case No.-77/2011 is allowed on contest against O.Ps.-1 to 4 with a cost of Rs.2,000/-.
The O.Ps.-3 and 4 are hereby directed to install the Airtel Digital TV Connection of the complainant within fifteen days at free of cost.
The complainant shall also get an award of compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the O.Ps. (Rs.2500/- from O.Ps.-1 & 2 and Rs.2500/- from O.Ps.-3 & 4) on account of causing harassment and mental agony.
That the O.Ps. are hereby directed to pay the aforesaid amount of cost and compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order, in default, the said amount shall bear further interest @ 10% p.a. till realization.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
