DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

=============

Anil Kumar Ahluwalia s/o D.C. Ahluwalia, R/o House No. 3168, Sector 23, Chandigarh, now residing at #1199, Sunny Enclave, Sector 125, Mohali (Kharar).

                                                                   ---Complainants

Vs

[1]          Utility Engineers, SCO No. 310, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

[2]     Dish T.V. India Limited, FC-19, Sector 16-A, Film City, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, Pin code – 201 301.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA           MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU          MEMBER

Argued By: Sh. Amit Rajan, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1.

Sh. Brijesh Kaushik, Advocate for Opposite Party No.2.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 On purchase of a Samsung LCD TV from Opposite Party No. 1, the Complainant had been offered a free subscription of Dish TV HD connection of Opposite Party No.2 worth `2,390/-. The Television and the Dish TV connection were installed and activated at his residence by the representatives of the Opposite Parties respectively.          The Complainant wished to continue with the Dish T.V. connection after the free period and hence, logged on the site of Dish T.V. to opt for the minimum pack. He was told that he would have to pay `450/- per month. This amount include `325/- for Platinum Pack plus `125/- for H.D. Pack. According to the Complainant, this pack was very expensive and hence, not acceptable to him. He, thus, issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties, in reply to which he was informed by the Opposite Parties that opting for the connection was his own choice.  The re-charge of the connection would be as per the terms and conditions available on the official site, as well as the leaflet attached. Not satisfied with the reply and not wanting to spend so much money, the Complainant bought a TATA Sky HD connection for `2599/- and thereafter, filed the instant complaint. The Complainant had prayed for refund of `2390/-, besides costs and compensation.

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                 Opposite Party No. 1 in reply has submitted that the Complainant has purchased a LCD Television from them. The Dish T.V. connection was supplied to him free of cost as a promotion offer with the LCD.  They had not offered any package of Opposite Party No. 2 after the free period of 45 days. Hence, denying any connection with the matter and denying the averments of the complaint, Opposite Party No. 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                 Opposite Party No. 2 in reply has stated that the Complainant received the Dish T.V. connection, along with a 45 days initial subscription on purchase of one LCT T.V. A free viewing period of 45 days was given to the Complainant subject to the terms & conditions. After the expiry of free viewing period of 45 days the Complainant was required to re-charge his connection by paying the relevant subscription charges at the prevailing package rates. The Complainant was never forced or bound to purchase the package after the free period of 45 days. Hence, denying all other allegations of the Complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

7.                 The grievance of the Complainant is that he has been asked to pay extra money beyond his expectation for the HD Dish T.V.  package of Opposite Party No. 2 provided to him by Opposite Party No. 1 at the time of sale of a LCD T.V. The price of the free package was `2390/-. A perusal of the bill placed on record by the Complainant himself shows that the Complainant has been charged for the LCD T.V. only. There is no bill for `2390/-. Hence, it is obvious that this was a free offer, and the Complainant has not paid anything for the said offer. His demand for refund of this amount is therefore not sustainable, because he has not made any payment of this amount to either of the Opposite Parties.

8.                 The Complainant’s desire not to opt for the package of Opposite Party No.2 at a later date, or choosing another suitable cheaper connection cannot be made a liability of either of the Opposite Parties.  It is not his case that the LCD T.V. purchased by him is defective or non- functional. It is also not his case that the Opposite Party No.2 has refused to provide him a package. The pamphlet placed on record by the Complainant at the time of arguments shows that the minimum amount of `450/- (`325/- for Platinum Pack + `125/- for HD Pack) is required to be paid for the re-charge. The Complainant has choosen not to do so.

9.                 In view of above discussion, we do not feel that the Complainant has any case against the Opposite Parties. The case is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

10.               Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30^th May,  2012.                                                                        Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER