D.O.F:17/08/2019

                                                                                                  D.O.O:20/10/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.162/2019

Dated this, the 20^th day of October 2021

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Nisha Thomas,

Thomson Residence, Kara Toad

Chittarikkal.P.O

Kasaragod – 671326                                                           : Complainant

(Jithesh Babu.P.K)

1. Videocon D2H

    Represented by its CEO or Nodel Officer,

     61/2017A, Kurisupally Road, Near Cochin

     Shipyard, Ravipuram, Cochin – 682015.

2.  TRAI

      Represented by its Secretary

      Mahanagar Doorsanchar Bhawan

      Jawaharlal Nehru Marg (Old Minto Road)

      New Delhi: 110002

      (Adv: Rajagopala.A)

ORDER

 SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant has taken a DTH connection of Videocon since March 2016 customer ID is 169731564 account No: 16098749.  Complainant is at liberty to choose desired channels 100 in any Indian language.

     But Opposite Party No: 1 intentionally keeps it without updating thereby unfair trade practice.  Thereby selection of proper channel by complainant not made possible.  The issue was taken up but no satisfactory remedial measures thereby complainant alleges deficiency in service which caused mental tension and monitory loss.  The relief sought in the complaint are to re-imburse the account to update and maintain their website as per TRAI FTA list, pay compensation, portability compensation under different heads and to pay costs and such other reliefs.

     Opposite Parties filed their written version.  Opposite Party No: 1 admitted that complainant is a subscriber of DTH branch D2 H of Opposite Party No: 1 as its customer from March 2016.  It denied that customer is kept in darkness, but customer is supplied with full details, following guidelines but 24 News Channel is not available, but additional channel are available.  Option is given to login to know paid of channel on their own choice.  Complainant is still enjoys the very same channel.  Complainant is not entitled to any relief in the case.

    Complainant filed proof affidavit.  Ext A1 to A10 documents marked.  Opposite Party has not adduced any evidence.

            Considering the disputed claims following points arise for consideration in the case.

1. Whether there is any deficincy  in service of Opposite Party No:1 in updating their website with latest information to be made available to consumers including 24 News channel.
2. Whether the complainant suffered any mental tension agony due to alleged deficiency in the service and if so whether complainant is entitled to any compensation as claimed?

     The complainants case is that Opposite Party intentionally keeps its updating pending thereby selection of proper channel by complainant not made possible.  Complainant filed complaint on 29/10/2019 which is marked as Ext A4, that Opposite Party are liable to maintain and provide best service.  Complainant sought re-imburse the amount and to update and maintain their website.

     The Opposite Party contents that they offer best services to its customers and though website is not up dated early, consumer never suffer due to that because they have option of their choice of channel.

     The customers are not aware of their rights, obligation and various schemes offered of their websites not updated in time.

     The customer has to pay for free to air channel which he is not required to pay for.  In some cases, the consumer has to pay subscription even if the services are not available off.  The free to air channels are bundled up with the pay channels so that the consumer is unable to see the free of air channels if the subscription for the pay channels is not paid.

     The Opposite Party No: 1 is directed to clearly inform their customers broadcasted on their websites and also on their platforms, provide free to air channels to the customers without bunding it with other channels and the choice should also be given to the customer to subscribe even one channels and the choice should also be given to the customer. 

     The Opposite Parties filed their version.  But not turned up to rebut the allegations by adducing reliable evidence before the commission.  Consumer has the right to know the status of channels, but Opposite Party failed to provide details by updating in their website.  In the circumstances we are of the view that the act of Opposite Parties seems to be unfair trade practice and negligence for which Opposite Party No:1 are liable to pay compensation to the complaint.  And complainant also entitled for cost of the litigation.  Claims against Opposite Party No: 2 is rejected

     In the result complaint is allowed in part directing opposite Party No: 1 to pay        Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for negligence and unfair trade practice and also pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as towards the cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of the order.

      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- True copy of press release

A2- Copy of TV channel list

A3- Live program copy

A4- Frequently asked question

A5- C.D

A6-Trai Tariff order

A7- C.D

A8- Channel list

A9- Cable Television networks Act

A10- RTI Reply

     Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                Sd/-

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/