BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

C.C.No.83/2014

Dated this the  4^th  day of January 2016

S. Malliga, wife of K. Thiagarajan      

20, Lourdu Nagar, Muthialpet,   

Puducherry – 605 003.

                                                ….     Complainant

Vs.

1. The Proprietor           

    Annai Electronics                  

    Puducherry – 605 001.

2. The Managing Director

    Bharti Airtel Ltd.,

    New Delhi – 110 070

….     Opposite parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Tmt. PVR. DHANALAKSHMI, B.A.,B.L.,

           MEMBER

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT                  :  Party-in-Person

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:          :  Exparte

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to:

1. Direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the complainant the entire HD STB Charge of Rs.1800/- plus pay Rs.1000/- half of the initial installation charge collected for the dish, the old STB etc., plus pay an exemplary compensation of Rs.5,000/- for collecting excess charge from the Customer for the HD STB, totaling Rs.7800/-.
2. Direct the Opposite Party No.2 to close the complainant's account and pay her the recharge amount of Rs.2698.92.
3. Direct the Opposite Party No.2 to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the hardships, mental agony, embarrassment  etc.
4. Direct the Opposite Party No.2 to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

          The first Opposite Party being the Authorised Airtel Digital TV Distributor, installed a DTH dish and a Standard Definition (SD) HD Set Top Box to the complainant with ID No. 3000560097.  The husband of the Complainant subscribed for South mega half yearly advance rental plan of Rs.2410/- from 12/2/14. On 22.2.2014 the second opposite party, on the request of complainant terminated the above plan and changed to South Super Value plan at yearly subscription of  Rs.1750/-.  Apart from the above the complainant made an addition to English plus choto pack at Rs.960/- as yearly subscription.  The first Opposite Party has received back old SD STB and replaced with high definition (HD) set top Box (STB) on cost of Rs.1880/- on 13.5.14. On 8.2.14 the complainant had a recharge  balance of Rs.2698.92 and next recharged was due on 28.8.14 as per south mega six month plan.   while so, on 22.2.14 the Airtel told the complainant's husband through e-mail that new package would be valid till 22.2.15 for the further recharge of Rs.197.70 The compliant received all the channels till 12.5.14 with frequent interruption of service. The complainant was advised by the Opposite Parties that a HD set top Box upgradation would solve the interruption like , set top box hang and no signal etc. On 13.5.14 the husband of the complainant paid Rs.1800/- to the first OP for HD STB upgradation by  returning the old SD STB. Thereafter the new HD STB was activated and  received a few Tamil and other channels but not English Plus Top Up till 13.06.2014. The Airtel suspended the service of all channels on 14.6.14 stating that the account balance is low when the complainant has sufficient balance for continuance of  service till January 2015 as per 12 month advance rental plan which already paid by her. The change of plan effected on 22.2.14 at a monthly rental of Rs.226/-  with validity till  22.2.15 was not really effected in her account which is a cheating of the customers. The second Opposite Party did not respond to the letters sent by the complainant in July and august 2014. Further, the HD upgradation of the complainant's SD STB was done in an utterly carless manner without checking her subscription plan and package validity period which resulted in utterly careless suspension of TV service as well.  As per Airtel SMS marketing campaign charge for the STB HD upgradution Rs.1499 with a discount of Rs.500/- i.e, Rs.999/-, but the first Opposite Party has collected from the complainant a sum of Rs.1800/- after taking back the old SD STB. In short the OP has committed careless, mindless HD STB upgradution, excess collection for HD STB upgradution, harassment, and Insult to the compliant by way above acts. Hence, this complaint.

3.         The opposite parties remained absent and were set exparte.

4.         On the side of the complainant, the husband of the complainant  has chosen to examine himself as CW.1 and marked Exs.C1 to C26.

5.   Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.  Point No.1:

            The complainant has got a DTH dish and a Standard Definition (SD) Set top box (STB) for the Airtel Digital TV connection with Consumer ID No. 3000560097 and subscribed South Mega half-yearly advance rental plan for Rs.2,410/- with effect from 12.02.2014 in two instalments one on 6.2.2014 and other on8.2.2014 vide Exs.C1 and C2 SMS message to the complainant.  On 22.02.2014 the complainant changed her package from South Mega 6 months advance rental to South Super Value 12 months advance rental at a yearly subscription of Rs.1,750/- vide Ex.C3.  On the same day, the complainant made an addition of English Plus Chota Pack 12 months advance rental at a yearly subscription of Rs.960/- vide Ex.C4.     Hence, the complainant is the consumer to the Opposite Parties.

            7. POINT NO.2:        

The complainant is represented through her husband, who is the authorized power of attorney agent. It is submitted by the complainant that her husband has installed a DTH dish and a Standard Definition HD set top box some years ago for Airtel Digital TV connection with consumer ID No. 3000560097 through the 1^st opposite party. The complainant has subscribed for the Airtel Digital TV service 'South Mega'  half yearly advance rental plan costing Rs.2,700/- by paying the same in two instalments, viz. 06.02.2014 and on 08.02.2014 and the service connection is with effect from 12.02.2014 vide Exs.C1 and C2.  While so, on  22.02.2014, the 2^nd O.P. has terminated the service by effecting a change of the package of channels from 'South Mega' 6 months advance rental to 'South Super Value 12 months advance rental' @ a yearly subscription of Rs.1,750/- vide Ex.C3.  On the same date, at the request of the complainant, the 2^nd O.P. has made an addition of English Plus Chota pack for 12 months advance rental @ a yearly subscription of Rs.960/-. On 13.05.2014, the complainant approached the 1^st O.P. for a HD set top box upgradation to replace the old SD set top box. At the request of 1^st O.P., the complainant had returned the old SD set top box. The complainant also recharged for Rs.1,500/-on 08.02.2014 and had a balance of Rs.2,698.92 and the next recharge was due on 28.08.2014. To his surprise and shock, the 2^nd OP has sent an e-mail stating that the new package would be valid till 22.02.2015, the daily burn rate was '0' and the current balance in her account was only Rs.197.70 vide Ex.C4. The complainant had enjoyed the services of new package only for two and half month with various problems including 'set top box hang' and getting no signal. Immediately, the complainant approached the 1^st O.P. on 13.05.2014 for HD upgrdation and as directed by him, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,800/- for the same as per Ex.C5.  Even after upgradation, the complainant had received only few Tamil channels and not all the channels including English channel agreed to. Even though the complainant is having sufficient amount in the account, the screen displays 'the account balance is low'. The complainant sent e-mails to the Opposite Parties vide Exs.C6 and C6 dated 16.05.2014 and 14.06.2014 and on various dates as per Exs.C4, C8 to C12 regarding the low balance, suspended service etc.  The second Opposite Party vide Ex.C13 dated 03.07.2014 promised to solve the problems, but, they have failed to do so and caused harassment to the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties 1 and 2 in not furnishing channels as agreed and displaying the message as 'the account balance is low' amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant approached this Forum by way of filing  this complaint.

            8. This Forum has also perused the written arguments filed by the Power Agent of Complainant along with copies of orders passed by various Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and newspaper reports.

9. From the above facts and evidence adduced by the complainant, it is clear from Exs.C1 to C3 that the complainant got a DTH dish and a Standard Definition Set top box from first Opposite Parte initially by subscribing for South Mega half yearly advance rental plan and subsequently changed to South Super Value 12 months advance rental and also added English Plus Chota Pack.   While the complainant is having sufficient balance, the Airtel vide Ex.C4 e-mail that the complainant's current balance was minus Rs.197.70 and required to recharge her package.  Further, on perusal of Ex.C4, the daily burn rate was Rs.0.00 whereas on perusal of Ex.C8 it is Rs.5.83/-.  Soon after receipt of Ex.C8, the complainant sent Ex.C9 e-mail about the showing of "low balance" on the screen.  Since the various complaints of the complainant with the Airtel was unresolved, the husband of the complainant sent a complaint to The Ombudsperson, Bharti Enterprices Ltd., vide Ex.C14 dated 02.07.2014 which was acknowledged by them on 8.7.2014 vide Ex.C16, even then, his problem was not resolved.   The complaint sent notice to the opposite parties on 06.08.2014 stating her problem vide Ex.C20 and the same was received by them on 07.08.2014 vide Ex.C21 and Ex.C22.  Instead of resolving her problem, the Airtel has stopped the service vide Ex.C25 dated 01.09.2014.  The opposite parties never redressed the grievance of the complainant.  Further, the Opposite Parties, though received summons from this Forum, not come forward to appear and put forth their contentions.  This forum has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has proved the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are liable for their negligent act which leads to loss and injury to the complainant.

10.       Point No.3:

            In view of the decision taken in point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed and

1. the opposite party No.1 is directed to refund the complainant the entire HD STB Charge of Rs.1800/- plus pay Rs.1000/- half of the initial installation charge collected for the dish, the old STB etc. totaling Rs.2,800/-.
2. the Opposite Party No.2 is directed to close the complainant's account and pay her the recharge amount of Rs.2698.92.
3. To pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/-  being compensation for the loss and injuries caused to the complainant
4. To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceedings.

The above said order should be complied within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 4^th day of January 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

MEMBER

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

     MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  

CW.1              26.05.2015                K. Thiagarajan                          

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  Nil

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS: Nil

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

                   PRESIDENT

               (PVR. DHANALAKSHMI)

             MEMBER

                 (V.V. STEEPHEN)

            MEMBER