Tripura

West Tripura

CC/70/2015

Sri Kaushik Das. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director / CEO Tata Sky Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Saha, Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.A.Debnath.

14 Jul 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 70 of 2015

Sri Kaushik Das,
S/O- Late Nilmohan Das,
Dhaleswar Road No.15,
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.            ..…...Complainant.
    
-VERSUS-

1. The Managing Director/ CEO,
Tata Sky Limited,
Registered office:
3rd Floor, C-1, 
Wadia International Centre,
Bombay Dying Building, 
Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,
Mumbai, Maharastra- 400 025.

2. Tata Sky Service Centre,
Prameela Market,
(Near Satsang Ashram),
Krishnanagar, 
Agartala,West Tripura.            .........Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Pulak Saha,
                      Sri Anjan Debnath,
                      Sri Bhaskar Debroy,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Sri Swarup Pandit,
                      Advocate.                    

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:    14.07.16

 

J U D G M E N T

        This case arose on the petition filed by one Kaushik Das alleging deficiency of service by Tata Sky. Case of the complainant in short is that he was a customer of Tata Sky for home service of his TV. He was paying Rs.200/- in every month in addition to recharge. On 05.04.15 it was displayed that the account balance was due. Though due date of recharge was on 08/04/2015. Complainant recharged and paid Rs.301/- but the display continued. The problem continued for long period and he could not enjoy Tata Sky facility in his T.V. On 10.08.12 same problem arose and Tata Sky credited Rs.82.80. This time Tata Sky did not give proper redress so the case filed for redress. 

2.        Tata Sky authority appeared, filed W.S, challenging the maintainability. It is also stated that due recharge date was 22.04.15. It is admitted that due was on 08.04.15. Complainant confirmed that on 04.9.15 service was fine. 
    
3.        From the contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determining:
        (I) Whether the petitioner suffered due to the deficiency of service by the O.P. Tata Sky?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? 
        
4.        Petitioner produced statement on affidavit of one witness, P.W. 1, Kaushik Das. Petitioner also produced mail, copy, service request.
    
5.          One attorney on behalf of the O.P., Tata Sky  filed statement on affidavit only.

6.        On the basis of all the evidences we shall now determine the above points.
    
        Findings and decisions:

7.        In the evidence on affidavit Senior Manager and constituted attorney in para 7 of W.S stated that due to technical error it might have so happened on few instances that an immediate update was not provided on the television screen of the complainant after recharge was done. But it is admitted fact that petitioner recharged the account on payment of Rs.301/-. But thereafter also the display continued. According to the complainant it continued till 2015 for about 5 months. Generally people view the TV for entertainment but when a hazy picture comes on display   it causes annoyance and disturbance. On payment of dues and recharge this type of display should have been stopped. But due to technical error it continued for about 5 months. Petitioner therefore suffered because of the deficiency of service of Tata Sky. This is clear deficiency of service by Tata Sky and we are of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to get compensation. Tata Sky authority received the complaint several time but did not take any action. We therefore direct the O.P., Tata Sky to pay compensation amounting to Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. We also direct O.P., Tata Sky to pay litigation cost Rs.2,000/- to the petitioner, in total O.P. is to pay Rs.7,000/- to the petitioner, Kaushik Das within 2(two)  months. If the amount is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.    
 

                     Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.