Sri.Prakashchandra Rao,

Door No.39, Anantha Prasad,

Port Employees Housing Colony,

Hosabettu,

Mangalore – 575 026. …….. COMPLAINANT


VERSUS



1. M/s. Mayya Electronics,

Opp. Govindadas College,

Surathkal, Mangalore-575 014.



2. Proprietor,

M/s. Balaji Digital System,

Dish T.V. Authorized Dealer,

Vaz Chambers,

Besant Kalakunj Road,

Kodialbail, Mangalore –3.



3. M/s. ASC Enterprises,

Regd. Office B-10,

Essel House, Lawrence Road,

Delhi – 110 035. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES


The Complainant purchased Dish TV from the 1st Opposite Party on 30.4.2005 by paying Rs.4,500/-, offered one year warranty. At the time of purchasing the Dish TV, the Opposite Parties assured that the said Dish provides CNBC channel but the said channel was not available inspite of the installation and thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and paid extra amount of Rs.792/-. It is submitted that the said channel was available for few days and again the said channel was not available. Once again the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties and technicians of the Opposite Parties have come and repaired the Dish TV Antenna. Inspite of visit of the technicians, the said channel is not available.

It is contended that the Opposite Parties have given false advertisement and the Dish TV supplied by the Opposite Parties are sub-standard quality and it is not up to the standard. Therefore the Complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to return the deposit and other expenses i.e., a total sum of Rs.2,57,000/-.

2. Version notice issued to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version contended that the 1st Opposite Party is a dealer in electronic goods having its showroom and the 2nd Opposite Party is an authorized distributor of Dish TV. It is contended that except the 1st Opposite Party having introduced the Complainant to the 2nd Opposite Party, there is no relation of whatsoever nature between the Complainant and the customer and submitted that there is no defects in dish TV purchased by the Complainant.

Whenever a complaint was lodged by the Complainant the same was attended by the 1st Opposite Party by arranging for meeting the requirements through the 2nd Opposite Party and finally submitted that as a gesture of good relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party had offered to get the amount refunded to the Complainant and take back the dish TV instrument and the same was not acceptable to the Complainant but he was insisting to retain the same and submitted that the Opposite Party is ready to take back the dish TV for and on behalf of the 2nd Opposite Party and reimburse all the amount paid by the Complainant towards the installation and the yearly subscription and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



3. On perusing the pleadings of both the parties that the points arise for our consideration are as follows:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Dish Antenna purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties suffers from any defect/sub-standard quality?

(ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint, the Complainant– Sri.Prakashchandra Rao (CW1), filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C16 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Shivaprasad Mayya (RW1) – Proprietor of the Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Both parties produced notes of arguments.

We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.


Reasons

5. Point No. (i) to (iii):

Earlier, this Hon'ble Forum was pleased to dismiss the above complaint as per the order dated 15.06.2007. As against the said order, the Complainant has preferred an appeal in Appeal No.1514/2007 before the Hon’ble State Commission. The said appeal was allowed and matter was remanded after setting aside the earlier order for fresh enquiry on merits.

After the remand, notice served to both the parties. Both the parties appeared on record except Opposite Party No.3.

Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed version in Para No.10 specifically offered to the Complainant that they are ready to take back the dish TV antenna for and on behalf of the 2nd Opposite Party and reimburse all the amount paid by the Complainant towards the installation and the yearly subscription. On going through the above offer this Hon'ble Forum directed both the parties to be present before the FORA for amicable settlement but the Complainant reluctant to agree for amicable settlement. Hence we have proceeded to pass an order on merits.

It is proved on record that the Opposite Party No.3 being a manufacturer not appeared nor contradicted the evidence of the Complainant. The Ex C5 i.e., a letter dated 10.7.2005 issued by the Opposite Party No.1, wherein he has clearly stated that they have sent the technician to attend the complaint of the Complainant and the dish TV is working and there is no defect. But no such technical report produced before the FORA in order to show that the dish TV antenna is properly functioning. According to the Complainant dish TV antenna is not properly functioning even though the Complainant said to be using the dish antenna TV it would not have yielded any desired result. None of the Opposite Parties led any expert evidence to prove that the dish TV antenna is usable. In the present case, the Complainant is only the user does not know how about the dish TV antenna. Under that circumstances, we do find that though the Opposite Party admitted that he has sent the technician to attend the complaint of the Complainant and the dish TV is working and there is no defect but no such report has been produced before the FORA to show that it is under working condition.

However in the present case, the Opposite Party No.1 reasonably admitted to reimburse the amount. The Complainant ought to have accepted the offer but the Complainant was reluctant when the case was called for amicable settlement. In a case like this, what much one can expect from the Opposite Parties. Since the Opposite Parties agreed to reimburse the amount in their version and also the dish TV antenna proved to be it is not in working condition, we hereby direct the Opposite Parties to take back the dish TV antenna along with accessories by refunding the amount of Rs.9,984/- which includes Rs.4,700/- towards the DTH connection with fittings, Rs.792/- towards the payment of dish new package and Rs.2,392/- towards the dish news, dish welcome renewal package and Rs.2,100/- towards the deposit of dish pick package. Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment. In the present case, the Complainant approached the Hon’ble State Commission and this is the second round allegation, hence we assess Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.9,984/- to the Complainant after taking back the dish TV antenna along with accessories. And further to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance/payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.