IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN

No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020

consumer case(CC) No. CC/2453/2008

G.Nataraj & G. Nirmala W/o G.Siddanagoud
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Sri Raghavendra Stores,

Reliance Big TVReliance Group of Companies, 2nd Floor, A Block,

Reliance Communications Ltd, RCOM
...........Respondent(s)



COMPLAINT NO: 2453 OF 2008

1. G. Nataraj ‘Kalyana’, No. 384/A, 6th Block Ist Main, Adarshanagar Arashinakunte Village Bangalore Rural 562123 2. G. Nirmala W/o. G. Siddanagoud ‘Kalyana’, No. 384/A, 6th Block Ist Main, Adarshanagar Arashinakunte Village Bangalore Rural 562123 Complainants




V/S 1. Sri Raghavendra Stores Shop No. 1, New Thakur Complex 8th Mile, T. Dasarahalli Bangalore 560057 Reptd by its Proprietor, M.H. Shanthamma

2. Reliance BigTV Reliance Group of Companies 2nd Floor, ‘A’ Block Reliance Comunications Ltd. Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Thane Belapur Road, Kpar Khairne Navi Mumbai 400709 Reptd by its Chairman Anil Dhirubai Ambani


3. Reliance communications Ltd. RCOM, Reliance Group of Companies 8th Mile, T. Dasarahalli Bangalore 57 Reptd by its Manager / Manging Director Opposite Parties



ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale


This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts of the case are that complainant purchased a ‘big TV’ set from opposite party No. 1 which beared smart card No. 200614401325 on 29.10.2008 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,200/- for one year subscription and informed that service engineer of the opposite party No. 2 company will come and install the entire set within a span of 72 hours. Complainant sent e-mail to opposite party No. 2. Complainants waited till 04.11.2008, but no body either the service engineer of the opposite party No. 2 company nor any of their employee came to get install the said set. Complainants contacted the customer care many times. The complainants were surprised to hear from the customer care that they have cancelled the service of installation for the best reasons known to them. The opposite parties even after lapse of more than 15 days have never come forward to get install the set. They are negligent in their service.


Complainants suffered lot of mental agony. Complainants prayed to direct the opposite parties to get install the big-TV set or to pay back the amount of Rs. 2,200/- and compensation. 2. Notice issued to opposite parties. Opposite parties No. 1-3 appeared through counsel and defence version filed. On the date of appearance of the opposite parties itself the opposite party gave demand draft for Rs. 2,200/- to the complainant and the complainant accepted the demand draft keeping open the compensation issue to be decided by way of final hearing or disposal.


The opposite parties given a very detailed version denying deficiency in service requesting to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidences are filed. 4. Arguments are heard. 5. The points for consideration are: “1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?



2. Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation? If so, what would be quantum of compensation?” 6. I have gone through the complaint, documents and version. REASONS 7. It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 2,200/- for one year subscription for installation of DTH Service to the Big TV of the complainants. This amount has been received by the opposite parties on 29.10.2008 with an assurance that the set will be installed within 72 hrs. It is also admitted fact that as per the commitment and assurance the opposite parties failed to install DTH service.

The complainant had addressed an e-mail to the opposite parties narrating all facts. It is the defence of the opposite parties that from August 2008 the local cable operators have united together to resist other DTH providers to install their service in the surrounding vicinity at Nelamangala. The franchisee was constrained to lodge a police complaint against the concerned. Under these circumstances it is the case of the opposite parties that they were not in a position to provide DTH service to the complainant and accordingly, it was intimated to the complainants that request was rejected. As per the defence it is clear that in August 2008 the local cable operators resisted DTH providers to install service at Nelamangala.

If this is the case why the opposite parties should accept amount from the complainant on 29.10.2008. The amount has been accepted and commitment was given to the complainant that service will be provided within 72 hrs. But the opposite parties have failed to keep up their commitment and assurance. This is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. If local cable operators have taken objections and police complaint is also filed against them. It is problem between the opposite parties and local cable operators. That is nothing to do with the complainant. The opposite parties should have sorted out the problem with the local cable operators and as per the assurance, agreement and commitment the opposite parties should have given DTH service to the complainant since the opposite parties have taken Rs. 2,200/- amount for one year subscription. So under these circumstances the complainant is liable to compensate suitably. It is argued by the learned advocate for the complainant that due to non-installation of DTH service the complainant was not able to view the TV program for about 15 days. Thereby complainants have suffered mentally. The complainant has sought Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. I am of the opinion that this is very exaggerated amount claimed by the complainant. On the facts and circumstances of the case a reasonable compensation could be awarded for deficiency of service. This being a small issue I am of the opinion that grant of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- will meet the ends of justice. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 8. The Complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 30 days the said amount carries interest at 12% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation.


9. Complainants are also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings.

Dear Sir,
Myself Shailendra Sureshrao Shete customer ID *200579762849* I have called
your customer service executive on 26th for change Plan from Starter to
Bronze pack. When i called first time during 9-10 pm executive taken my
request and guided me accordingly. But after waiting 1 hr. i have not seen
change of your activation so i called 2nd time between 11-12 pm to report
that Bronze pack is not activated yet. Executive tell me to see in the
morning you will definitely get activated. So i believe and gone out of
station for my office work. Nobody was at home. When i return home on today
itself i have seen that Bronze pack is still not activated so i called to
Customer service and he transferred to Technical department for solution and
then i got activated bronze pack by today. I already checked my balance it
was above Rs.250/- so in the morning before calling customer service i have
checked my balance it was Rs.225/- that means i have been charged for two
packs 1.Starter and 2.Bronze for two days only because I believed BIG TV
system. When i demanded explanation against this from your customer service
executive he transferred call to Supervisor. Supervisor talked me disgusting
things he told me why didnt i called two days before about this. If i
supposed to call this two days back i will never believe BIG TV and bliendly
go out of statione. This very shameful explation Supervisor give me. The
company like R-ADAG should not suppose to do practices like this. Question
is not of Rs.10/- or something but customer loyalty is what you have to look
at. So please look into the matter and do the needful. One more thing i
should say about your Supervisor is are they trained to Misbehave with
customer and to talk to bullshit things. Please have a look.

--
shailendra shete

Dear Sir,
My name is Shibu Mathew living in Chennai. I bought Bigtv before an year. Now my
balance is over, so i recharged my account for 3200 Rs throught my credit card
through their website and I called the customer care and i told them the transaction
ID and my smart card no., they are saying that the amount is in negative balance.
for the past 2 days i m keep on calling them but all the customer care
representative and the team leader saying some time duration and they cutting the
call but even after 2 days from the time of reacharging i am not get proper response
from the customer care executives. so i planned to file a case against the company
in the consumer court. For the past 2 day i would have called them around 15 to 20
times. actually i lost my energy by calling them. Please do take the neccessory
steps against the company.

transaction id : 149699
some person whom i spoke to : kumar (cust support lead) ,satish kumar(cust support
lead) , fiaz, jaipal(cust support lead)

yours faithfully
SHIBU MATHEW

Big tv user for an year.Recharged account with Rs 1800. Called customer care to activate one year south bronze pack and deactivate old south delight pack.
After this, the account becomes Rs 510. No service available, no pack is active now.
My ID is 200655844258.
Reaching customer care might take more than 2 hours(that too if you are lucky).
I feel cheated and would never ever recommend BIG Tv for anyone.

Mr.Giridhar B. Kamath,

S/o. L.Bhaskar Kamath,

Aged 31 years,

Residing at Vignesh,

1st Floor, J.B. Lobo Road,

Near Hegde Stores,

Kodical, Mangalore -6. …….. COMPLAINANT



(Advocate for the Complainant: Smt.Suma R. Nayak)



VERSUS



1. M/s. Casmin Electronics,

Devaki Nandana Building,

D.No.7-76/7, B 5th Cross,

Near SNDP, Kodical,

Mangalore.



(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1:Sri.K.S. Nambiar).



2. M/s. Omega Services,

Smrithi Nivas,

Guruprasad Lane,

Gourigudda, Kankanady,

Mangalore – 2.



3. M/s.Balaji Distributors,

D.No.5-9-957(2),

New Ganesh Mahal,

Alake, Mangalore – 3.



4. Reliance Big T.V.,

Business Headquarters, 4th Floor,

Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City,

NAVI Mumbai – 400 710,

Maharashtra. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES









***************



1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging defect in goods against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

It is submitted that the Complainant purchased the Reliance Big TV connection along with its kits and accessories from the Opposite Party No.1 on 12.9.2008 and paid Rs.2,190/-. The Opposite Party No.1 explained to the Complainant that he would get 12 months free south delight pack from the date of activation of the instrument as per Ex C2 which is the brochure of big TV.

It is contended that the instrument was installed in the month of September 2008 and only till November 2008 the Complainant was able to view all the channels so promised under Smart South 1990 Offer. The Complainant lodged a complaint regarding the non-availability of the channels as promised with the toll free number of the Opposite Party bearing No.1800-200-9001. That the Opposite Parties rectified the mistake after a week. Again on 21.11.2008 there was interruption in the signal and once again the Complainant lodged a complaint bearing No.80952338. On 26.11.2008 the Complainant received a reply from the Opposite Party stating that he is required to recharge the currency by paying Rs.700/-. It is submitted that the Complainant is entitled to one year viewing of South Delight Pack containing 152 channels as per the Smart South 1990 Offer. There is no requirement of recharging currency by paying an additional Rs.700/-.



It is submitted that the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties did not co-operate with the Complainant and thereafter issued a legal notice dated 2.12.2008, only the Opposite Party No.1 sent a reply and rest of the Opposite Parties not sent reply. It is contended that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency and hence the above complaint is filed by the Complainant before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,190/- being the bill amount with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from 12.9.2008 till the date of payment and also claimed Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.



2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel and rest of the Opposite Parties despite of serving notice neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Therefore we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.2 to 4. The acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 to 3.

The Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the Complainant has purchased the above big TV receiver, activation kit worth Rs.1,490/- and recharge voucher worth Rs.700/- from the Opposite Party No.1 and the same has been delivered to the Complainant and the Complainant has handed over the same to the Opposite Party No.2 who is doing the installation and service work of the Opposite Party No.4. The amount collected by the Opposite Party No.1 does not include the dish TV antenna system. The dish TV antenna is being directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 to the Opposite Party No.2. The installation and service work was done by the Opposite Party No.2.

It is submitted that once the materials are delivered to the customer, the problems if any that occurs thereafter, it is only the 2nd and 4th Opposite Parties who are liable to rectify the same and contended that there is no deficiency in service whatsoever as alleged by the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the dish TV antenna purchased by him proved to be defective and the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?





(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?







(iii) What order?



4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Giridhar B. Kamath (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C5 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.K.T.Josy (RW1), Proprietor of Opposite Party No.1 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. The Complainant 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):

In the instant case, the facts which are not in dispute are that the Complainant had purchased the Reliance Big TV connection along with its kits and accessories from the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.2 is the authorized person for installation and Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized distributor and Opposite Party No.4 is the manufacturer of the said Reliance Big TV system. The above instrument was purchased on 12.9.2008 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued cash memo bearing No.658 for a sum of Rs.2,190/- (as per Ex C1). It is also not in dispute that the Opposite Party No.1 collected the amount in respect of the Dish TV Antenna system and the south side regional package popularly known as “Smart South 1990 Offer” at the rate of Rs.1,990/- and a sum of Rs.200/- towards two sports channels which has been referred in the said bill. The smart 1990 offer was inclusive of the kit costing Rs.1,490/-. It is also not in dispute that the set top box along with GSK was provided to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 and the dish antenna and other accessories were provided by the Opposite Party No.2.


It is also not in dispute that Opposite Parties had given the authorized offers by printing brochures with regard to the Big TV connections, which was made available to the Complainant through Opposite Party No.3. Further it is not disputed that as per the brochure published by the Opposite Party No.4 that the Complainant was to get 12 months free south delight pack from the date of activation of the instrument. The above said antenna was installed by the Opposite Party No.2 in the month of September 2008.

Now the point in dispute is that, the Complainant was not able to view the authorized channels which were promised in the brochure published by the Opposite Party No.4. The trouble started in the month of November 2008 when the Complainant was not receiving the signals of the channels and there was interruption in the telecast and the Complainant lodged the complaint.


That the Opposite Parties rectified the mistake after a week. Subsequently thereafter till 21.11.2008 there was no interruption. On 21.11.2008 once again there was an interruption the Complainant lodged a complaint but the Opposite Parties not responded and thereafter the Complainant received a reply stating that he is required to recharge the currency as the currency had expired and he is required to pay Rs.700/-. The Complainant contended that the Complainant had paid Rs.1,990/- for the smart south pack which was for a period of one year and only one month she had successfully used but thereafter it has been interrupted and she contended that she is not able to view the channels hence this complaint.

The Opposite Party No.2, 3 and 4 inpsite of receiving version notice by RPAD not appeared nor contradicted the evidence of the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party No.1 appeared before the FORA and stated that the Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible. The Complainant has purchased the big TV receiver, activation kit worth Rs.1,490/- and recharge voucher worth Rs.700/- from this Opposite Party and the dish TV antenna is being directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 to the Opposite Party No.2 and the installation service work was done by the Opposite Party No.2. It is contended that once the materials are delivered to the customer and thereafter the said customer hands over the materials to the installing and servicing agent, the problems if any it is only the 2nd and 4th Opposite Parties who are liable to rectify the same and contended that there is no deficiency in service.

It is significant to note that except the above it is not denied that the dish TV antenna delivered by the Opposite Parties are in working condition. It is clearly admitted that the dish TV antenna purchased by the Complainant is not working condition and she cannot view the channels. From the undisputed fact as well as the documents produced by the Complainant especially the Ex C2 i.e., the brochure issued by the Opposite Party No.4 guaranteed to the customers that the digital TV service guaranteed with the offer that customer can choice more than 200 channels, 3 months free unlimited access to exclusive big Cinema monthly subscription packs, 20 cinema channels, 120 movies, new movies every 15 days, sensation audio entertainment on 10 audio channels, free regional pack along with big TV customers provided exclusive offers in South India.


The Smart South 1990 Offer at Rs.1,990/-which includes GSK of Rs.1,490/- plus recharge coupon vouchers and the customer will get 12 months free south delight pack. Since it is admitted that the Complainant could watch the channels only for a period of two months and till now she could not able to view the channels inspite of lodging complaint with the Opposite Parties. The Ex C1 to C5 which clearly go to show that the Complainant is entitled to receive 152 channels for a period of a year i.e., from September 2008 to September 2009. Apart from the above it is pertinent to note that the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 inspite of receiving notice not appeared before the FORA nor contested the case till this date. The entire documents as well as evidence were not rebutted hence it requires no further proof.

Taking into overall consideration the facts which proved that the Complainant was not able to view the channels as promised by the Opposite Parties till this date amounts to deficiency. Since it is admitted that the dish TV antenna is directly delivered by the Opposite Party No.4 i.e., the manufacturer to the Opposite Party No.2 it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party No.4 and 2 should see the problem in the dish TV antenna and rectify the same by giving proper service but in the instant case the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.4 is miserably failed to give a proper service to the Complainant. Hence Opposite Party No.2 and 4 are responsible for the above deficiency.

By considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is proved beyond doubt that the Complainant lodged the complaint, inspite of that the Opposite Parties not responded and not rectified the problems faced by the Complainant hence it is proved that the dish TV antenna supplied by the Opposite Parties has some problem and not in working condition. Under such circumstances directing the Opposite Parties to rectify the defects will not meet the ends of justice since they have not responded the complaint of the Complainant. Therefore, we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.2 and 4 to refund Rs.2,190/- by taking back the big TV antenna system along with accessories from the Complainant and further Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation for the inconvenience and harassment caused by the Opposite Parties. And Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Since there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 3 the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.



6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.2 and 4 are hereby directed to refund Rs.2,190/- (Rupees two thousand one hundred and ninety only) by taking back the big TV antenna system along with accessories from the Complainant. And further Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses to the Complainant. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Complaint against Opposite Party No.1 and 3 is hereby dismissed.

I was asked to recharge for Rs.220/- for one month package after completion of one year service. I did it using my credit card. But the money is not still reflected in the account. Everytime, when I call up the customer care, I have been taken for a ride stating, the complaint has been raised & the issue will be resolved ASAP.

My complaint no.110968839
My smart card no. 20 0503 1628 48

Let me know if anything can be done here.

Regards,
Vidyasagar
vidyasaagarin@gmail.com

Dear Big TV,



I had purchased my Big TV 3 months back. I was not aware that I am buying a problem
for me. I dont know how other DTH companies are working or providing customer
support but the your support is so worst and even I will use "worst than the
worst" ! Calling your customer care is like to deal with a group of eneducated,
useless, Liar, unprofessional people. its really a pathetic experience for me
atleast.



Recently on 11th October I have noticed that my Set Top Box is giving smart card
error and I immeditely logged a compliant at your Toll Free number 1800-200-9001.
They had informed that the complaint has been registered and will be rectified in
next 48 hrs. I had waited till the given time and agian called on 15th and got a
response that no complaint was logged on 12th and I need to register a fresh
complaint. The same has been done and provided a complaint number 111223374 and
asked to wait for another 48 hours. I again called your customer care on 16th to
know the status and it was informed that I need to wait for the given time frame.



I again called your customer care on 16th to know the status of my complaint. It was
informed that since the compalint is not rectified by them therefore they have to
forward this to Mumbai headoffice to take an immediate action and suggest that to
wait for another 24 hours and the problem will be rectifiied by their HO
immediately.



I again called on 18th to know the status but no positive reply received from the
customer care.



Today I had called 3 times to your customer care and call has been attended by Ravi,
Preet and some another guy. First 2 guys had not given my any sufficient reply and
informed that their Engineer had visited my premises today at 11-30 and rectify the
hardware problem. I had informed that no body even called me or visited my house to
rectifiy the issue and it was a false report submitted by your engineer. Both the
guys had disconnect the line when I had asked the reason for closure. I suggest to
take an action against your engineer who is giving wrong reports of their visit.



Finally I spoken to Hriday and he again gave me another compliant number 111403818
and asked me to wait for another 48 hours.



I have made atleast 20-30 calls and spent more than 2-3 hours to speak with your
customer care and even you are deducting daily charges from my account without
providing any services.



I am totally fed up with your services and this is not the way to deal with the
customer. You are making fool of you customers who trust on your services.



I want an immediate action on this. I also request you either educate your customer
care executives to speak with your customers.



Thanks & Regards,

Sunil Kumar
9811383280

Consumer Complaint No

1071 of 2009

Date of Institution


29.07.2009

Date of Decision

07.12.2009

Sushil Kumar s/o Ram Niwas Gupta #3478, Sector 37D, Chandigarh, partner, Prem Medicos, Booth No.74-A, Sec.70, Mohali.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Reliance Big T.V. Ltd., Business Headquarters, 4th Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai-400070, Maharashtra.

2. Vee Kay Enterprises, SCO 387, Sector 37D, Chandigarh.



..…Opposite Parties



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh. D.K. Singal, Adv. for OP-1

OP-2 ex-parte.



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Succinctly put, on 29.11.2008 the complainant purchased a BIG TV DTH service equipment from OP-2 for Rs.2,190/- having 12 months validity free lite pack as printed in the brochure. However, after 1½ month from the date of purchase, the DTH service was disconnected without any prior intimation. He reported the matter a number of times to OP-2 and also lodged complaints with the customer care of OP-1 thrice, but to no avail. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2. In their written reply OP-1 took preliminary objections inter alia that this Forum has no jurisdiction in view of authority of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of General Manger, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan & Anr., as well as in view of clause 20.3 of the Customer Application Form (CAF); that the complainant has no locus standi. On merits it has been admitted that as per brochure, under the ‘Lite Pack for One year’ the DTH services were to be provided for one year. It has been vehemently denied that the complainant ever approached them or lodged any alleged complaint regarding disconnection of services and rather the services were still intact. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3. OP-2 did not appear despite due service hence it was proceeded against ex-parte.

4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5. We have heard the parties and have also perused the record.

6. The Learned Counsel for OPs has argued that OP-1 has its office at Navi Mumbai, that at the time of granting the DTH connection it was agreed that the dispute, if any, shall be settled by the Courts at Mumbai and therefore this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint. We do not find any merit in this argument. It is admitted that the DTH connection has been given to the complainant at Chandigarh and the supply was disconnected as per the complainant at Chandigarh. OP-1 has its agent OP-2 located at Chandigarh through whom this connection was taken. In this manner when one of the OPs is carrying on business in the area of Chandigarh and the cause of action has also accrued at Chandigarh, the Fora at Chandigarh would have the jurisdiction to try this complaint. Secondly, OPs have not produced any such agreement executed between the parties to exclude the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh or to confer jurisdiction on the Consumer Fora at Mumbai. Furthermore annexure P2 and P3 vide which the connection was taken specifically mentions this fact that all disputes will be settled at Chandigarh jurisdiction. In view of these facts we are of the opinion that the Consumer Fora at Chandigarh have the jurisdiction to decide this case and the contention of the OP, which is to the contrary, cannot be accepted as correct.

7. The Learned Counsel for OPs has also referred to the decision dated 1.09.09, rendered by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Number 7687 of 2004, General Manager Telecom Vs. M.Krishnan & another and has argued in view of this authority that the matter is to be settled by Arbitration and the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to try such disputes. It may be mentioned that, that was a case relating to a telephone connection, which was disconnected on account of non-payment of phone bill. The facts of this case are distinguishable from the facts of the present complaint. It is not a dispute relating to a telephone connection, secondly there is no disconnection on account of non-payment of the charges and thirdly there is no agreement between the parties under which it was decided to settle/decide the dispute by Arbitration. Moreover in view of section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the remedy under the Consumer Protect Act has been provided to the aggrieved persons in addition to any other remedy provided under any other Law meaning thereby that even in the cases where the dispute is to be settled by Arbitration the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora is not excluded. We are therefore of the opinion that this argument of the Learned Counsel for OPs is also not correct.

8. OPs have admitted that the complainant is their customer to whom they are rendering DTH service but their contention is that the said service is still being provided to the complainant and has not been disconnected. The entire data w.r.t. the connection is with OPs but has not produced any such proof to suggest if the connection is still in force and has not been disconnected. On the other hand the complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that the DTH connection worked only for one and a half month and thereafter it was disconnected.

9. He claimed to have made complaints to OP-1 at their customer care number as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint but OP-1 has denied this fact. They however did not produce the record to suggest w.r.t. what dispute the said complaint numbers mentioned by the complainant in para 5 of the complaint relate to. The non-production of the record w.r.t. the said complaint requires an adverse inference to be drawn against OP-1, that if the said record was produced it would have proved that the complainant has lodged complaint regarding disconnection of the services to his house. The OP-2, who is there local agent, has not come forward to deny these allegations. The correct facts were actually known to OP-2 but he was proceeded ex-parte which suggests that they have no defense to make or to falsify the allegations leveled by the complaint in his complaint. OP-1 while sitting in Mumbai cannot prove the continuity of services. On 7.12.2009 the OP-1 moved an application for amendment of the reply filed by it alongwith which an affidavit was filed in both of which it was admitted that the services were disrupted in March 2009. These facts, therefore, show that the OP is an unreliable person who can take contradictory stand to serve its own purpose even if the same are factually incorrect. We are therefore of the opinion that the complaint made by the complainant is full of merit which proves that OPs have been deficient in rendering the services.

10. In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds. The same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund to the complainant the sum of Rs.2,190/- along with litigation costs of Rs.1,100/- from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay penal interest @ 12% per annum, since the date of institution of the complaint i.e. 29.07.09, till the amount is paid to the complainant.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

hi,
my smart card # 200547899301 .. worst pathetic service ever, there has been o connection sunce 2 feb 2010, i called them and raised a ticket # 11119201002 ...they promised to get back in 48 hours abd resolve the issue, howver no one has called...... after that i raised another ticket #119411489, again 48 hours and no response .......................meanwhile i have been calling them for about 10 - 20 times.........and same old shitty response - it will get resolved in 48 hours ........worst pathetic no value for money scamsters...............
their website has this heading
"Customer Care
At your service 24 X 7
At Reliance BIG TV, you get the most exclusive entertainment service along with the best customer care experience ever "
i am redifining it for them
"No Customer Care
At your service 24 X 7(If we are in a mood)
At Reliance SMALL TV, you get the most exclusive HASSLE service along with the WORST customer care experience ever"

Dear BIG TV,

I made a recharge of Rs 5000 to my Big TV account through my Standard Chartered Bank Credit card via IVR on calling Reliance customer care no. 1800-200-9001, on 15.02.2010. The amount got deducted from my credit card account the same day itself (on the name of Reliance Big TV) but till now i am waiting for the same to be credited to my Big TV account and my TV is still not working.

Regarding the same i have made in-numerous complaints (from 15th till today - i.e ) to the customer care but to no avail at all. Till now i have received nothing but false assurances. I have been tortured & troubled for more than 9 days now. The money has already been deducted and i am not getting any service.

I guess i am left with no option but to go to the nearby consumer court now and file a case against reliance BigTV for this horrifying experience.

Before doing that i just wanted to give this (Complaining via mail) also a try.

Although I am not very hopeful due to the kind of service lately i have got from reliance executives, but still i am hoping that everything gets sorted out immediately after reading this mail.


Regards,

Sunil KUmar

Big TV consumer no. 200 513 511 636
Transaction amount - Rs. 5000
Transaction date - 15.02.2010
Transaction ID - 486494
Transaction Mode - Through IVR (on reliance customer care no. 1800-200-9001) using standard chartered bank credit card.

Smart Card No. 200521442634
Name of Owner : Anup Rajak
Address : Q.No. 452/1 Bagbera Railway Colony,
Jamshedpur-831002

I have purchased Big TV connection one year earlier. I was not aware that I am buying a BIG problem for me. Company is providing us customer support but their support is so worst whenever I am calling to big TV customer care is like to deal with a group of wordings. They just give only words but no work has been done.



Recently on 28th February I have noticed that my Set Top Box had poor signal
error and I immediately logged a complaint at Toll Free number 1800-200-9001.
They had informed that the complaint has been registered with complain no. 120719847 and will be rectified in next 48 hrs. I had waited till the given time and again i called on 02nd February and got a response that one complaint was logged and I am sending this to our engineers of your area. Customer care talked to me very politely and said however your problem will be solved immediately.
but I have been calling them till now and no one is coming to me and even phoned to me.
Then after a lot of mentally pressure i decided to go their service centre in my area but I didn’t found anybody except one engineer phone no. 9304682330 named Viki. I have been calling me but he is not responding me, at least five times on a day I am calling him but no response found.
What result I got here
No one is coming to solve my problem and still i am waiting for an engineer.




Thanks & Regards,

Anup Rajak
Ph. No. 9334622575
Email : anuprajakbanty@gmail.com

I am preethi nair. smart card no: 200514097988. Big tv in the name of Harish Nair (my husband). We have
forwarded a request no:120953176 on 4th march for reinstalling the
big tv in our new place in cochin. but and we have recharged
350/- for that. Now every day my balance is getting reduced. I lost money from 950Rs. to 800/- Rs. but no body yet given a response
regarding the request. Please suggest me what to do . Why no body is responding from Cochin? What is the problem? Please help me in this regard. i want justice. i am getting cheating and i am loosing my money
Preethi Nair
09020424292

Sir
My big tv cunsumer No 200540602641

mob : 09447240999.
trivandrum , kerala
i could see only some of the channels in big tv . i resistered a complaint on april 28. a service personnal has attended and done some arrangements here and there after that i am not able to watch any of the channels .when i contacted him he told me to contact tne customer care . Somehow i could manage to contact again there and registered a complaint . they asked me 48 hous . after 48 hous when i contacted them i got the reply that your complaint is closed . then i registered complaint on 30 th april, may,5th, may 7 th , may 9th , .In between i wrote 5 e-mails to the customer care. i spoke to TSM, Senior supervissor twice. they are playing drama Still the problem is not solved.They are deducting money from my recahrege even if i am not able to see big tv since last 10 days .They have taken service charge of rs 270 for the excellent srvice they provided

hello sir i'm Deepak sharma a resident of flat no 11 satya kutumb chanakya puri vinaay marg new Delhi.As we shifted to our new residence (old address is B-9 palika niwas Lodhi Colony) we want to shift our big tv dish from earlier address to new address, as i registered a complaint in the call centre of reliance big tv on 6th may 2010 they told me that dish will be installed with in 24 hour but today is 11th i didnt get any response from there side every day i phoned they told me ur complaint will be in progress & prossesed. My initial complaint number is 125919243 today i have registered a new complaint whose no is 126318839 kindly help me . The dish is registered with my mom name that is Manju Sharma & our Id number is 200722995570.


regards
Deepak sharma

Dear Sir,

Greetings!

It has been a year since I bought a BIG TV connection. On 18-Jun-10 morning the Set Top Box did not switch on. At 7:30 AM I called the wonderful Customer Care (CC) service and made my complaint. The CC executive informed me that within a maximum time of 24 hrs my problem will be resolved and immediately a service request no.129589879 was sent to my mobile.

On 20-Jun-10 evening after waiting for 48 hrs I called the CC service and conveyed my displeasure as no one from BIG TV bothered to attend the service request. They simply informed me that the technician who was to attend my problem said that I was not willing to pay the service charges of Rs.175/- and hence he did not come to resolve the problem. That was a blatant lie. Immediately I wrote a mail to CC service out of sheer frustration and informed them that I would like to even surrender the BIG TV connection.

Next day morning (21-Jun-10) I get a new service request no.129852980 through SmS as though I had made a fresh complaint. I’m extremely frustrated as this DTH service provider is trying to make a fool of the customer. Today is 25-Jun-10 and my problem has still not been resolved. I have been calling everyday and all the response I get is that the problem will be resolved at the earliest. Added to this, on 18th when checked the balance available in my account, it was Rs.620/- Today when I checked the balance, it has come down to Rs.590/- without even attending to my problem. I have finally written to them today that I want to surrender this connection. THE SERVICE IS WORSE THAN JUST USELESS!

I would like to file a complaint on BIG TV regarding the continued delay in resolving my problem. I have also sent some mails to CC service in this regard to which they have also responded and which can be used a supporting document.

Please advice.

Thanks & regards

David