Delhi

North East

CC/141/2014

Ravi Shankar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Videocon Custumar Care - Opp.Party(s)

16 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 141/14

 

In the matter of:

		Shri Ravishankar S/o Sh. Devi Ram R/o J-290, Old Seemapuri, Delhi-110095		Complainant
		Versus
		Videocon Customer Care C-152 First Floor Okhla Indl. Area, Delhi-110019		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :		28.04.2014 10.01.2018 16.01.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed by Shri Ravishankar, the complainant against Videocon Customer Care (OP). The Complainant states that he had got installed a Videocon D2h Dish TV connection on 10.01.2014 vide Customer Agreement Form-cum-Work Order (copy enclosed). However, on 03.04.2014 the complainant had to lodge a complaint with Customer Care Centre of OP for interruption in service and on that day, the representative of OP visited the premises of complainant and after examining the DTH point, he demanded Rs. 400/- for fixing a screw over there, which payment was refused to be made by the complainant. It has been reported by complainant  that after inspection, the representative of OP opened the Dish and left the premises stating that he would come back with some essential items but he didn’t come back. The complainant further states that on 11.04.2014, another representative of OP came and stated that the complainant should get reinstalled the dish and thereafter he shall repair it. It has been stated further by the complainant that he installed the dish and thereafter representative of OP set the channels. It has been submitted by the complainant that his service of DTH was interrupted from 2.4.14 to 11.4.14 and soon thereafter on 22.4.14 the service of DTH was discontinued by OP, while the complainant had got recharge of an amount of Rs. 420/- on 8.4.2014 for DTH which was valid upto 9.5.14 but it came to his knowledge that Rs. 250/- were deducted from Rs. 420/- for setting the channels on DTH and the service was discontinued after 22.04.2014 after utilization of remaining charges. Accordingly, he had to again recharge his D2H account with Rs. 420/- on 22.04.2014 for DTH service. The complainant has filed the present complaint prayed to this Forum for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for harassment and mental agony faced by him from the OP and also alleged deficiency in service against the OP. A copy of Customer Agreement Form cum Work Order dated 10.01.2014 issued by OP has also been enclosed by complainant.
2. Notice dated 7.5.2014 was issued to OP on 9.5.2014 which had been served upon him on 10.05.14. The OP had filed his reply wherein he had denied all the allegations made in the complaint and further stated that there is no deficiency of service made out in the complaint. The OP took the defence that the complainant had filed a complaint at OP’s when centre on 3.4.2014 and on the same date, an engineer of OP visited the complainant’s premises. It was found by him that nut-bolts of Dish antenna  were broken and as such the service engineer conveyed to the complainant that dish antenna needs to be reinstalled and the same shall be done on chargeable basis but the complainant denied to pay any charges. Therefore, Service Engineer left the premises with no option left. It has been further submitted by the OP that again a complaint was lodged by complainant on 10.4.2014. In response to the complaint dated 10.04.2014, the service engineer again visited the premises of complainant and found that the dish antenna is in de-installed condition. Thereafter, the Service Engineer reinstalled the Dish antenna and reactivated D2h service to the complainant. However, the complainant again refused to make any payment to the Service Engineer despite made clear to him that service of relocation of dish antenna is to be done on chargeable basis. OP further states that on 12^th April 2014, an amount of Rs. 250/- were deducted from the complainant’s account only on successful completion of work order as per satisfaction of complainant. However, due to deduction of aforesaid Rs. 250/- from complainant’s D2h account maintained with OP, complainant’s D2h services prematurely expired on 22.4.2014, for want of sufficient balance. In its defence OP further states that complainant has been recharging his d2h account on continuous basis, which is evident of the fact that complainant has no grievance/ issues with OP services. The last recharge made by complainant in order to continue with its subscription of DTH service was on31.10.2015 for a sum of Rs. 520/- for the two connections which complainant have. Had the complainant actually been dissatisfied with OP services, he would have not continued with OP’s DTH services. It is further stated by OP that in recent past on 1.10.2015 complainant’s LNBF was damaged by monkeys. On receipt of complaint from complainant at the OP’s call centre, OP’s service engineer visited his premises and replaced the damaged part free of cost purely as an one time goodwill gesture, which although is replaceable/ available on chargeable basis. Since the OP has attended the complaint in time no deficiency in service alleged against it. Lastly the OP stated that the issue relating to the complainant’s interruption in service were fully resolved to the complete satisfaction of the complainant and the services were restored back.  The deduction of Rs. 250/- was deducted from complainant’s D2H account maintained with the OP, since complainant refused to pay the charges which was informed to complainant on number of occasions and well in advance. It was result of such deductions that complainant’s DTH service was discontinued. Complainant have continued to recharge his D2H account as per scheduled due date and the last recharge made by the complainant was on 31.10.2015 of Rs. 520/- which otherwise complainant would not have continued to do so, if complainant was not satisfied with OP services or had any genuine grievance.
3. However, after filing written statement the OP did not appear thereafter and due to repeated non appearance of OP, the OP was proceeded against ex parte on 10.06.2014.
4. The ex parte evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant on 03.11.2015.
5. We have gone through the material placed on record and also terms & conditions mentioned on the backside in Customer Agreement Form-cum-Work order and have found in para 10 of the above form that “By signing the CAF, the customer authorizes BBCL to charge the customer account for the subscription fee and for any other payments or charges incurred by customer on the due date for such amounts.” It is also mentioned in Para 12 that “Customer will be charged for all the installations and activations at prevailing rate schedule by BBCL” Such charges shall be debited to the Customer Account”. Keeping in view all the above factors we feel that no deficiency in service is attributable on the part of OP in view of prompt and regular services / repair done in respect to DTH service to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits with no order as to costs.   
6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.

 

7. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 16.01.2018)     

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member