C.C.No.76/2008
Between:
Guguloth Chenna Rao, S/o.Venkateswarlu, age; 28 years,

occu:Postman, Nagupally village, r/o.Nagupally village,

Dammapeta mandal, Khammam District.

…Complainant
And

1. Reliance Communications Infrastructure Limited, H Block 1st

floor, Dhirubai Ambani knowledge City, Koparkhai Rane, Navi

Mumbai Pin-400 710, rep. by its Managing Director.



2. Reliance Communications Limited, Business Headquarters, 3rd

floor, Dhirubai Ambani knowledge city, BIG TV Division,

Koparkhai Rane, Navi Mumbai, rep. by its Manager.



3. Vishnu Electronics, Main Road, Opposite Bus Stand, Sathupally

town and mandal, Khammam District.

…Opposite parties.

This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 21-10-2009; in the presence of Sri.B.Ramesh, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.I.Venkateswarlu, Advocate for opposite parties; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Forum passed the following order:


O R D ER

(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member)


1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is working as postman and residing at Nagupalli village of Dammapeta mandal in Khammam District, that on 9-9-2008 the complainant approached opposite party No.3 and purchased Reliance big TV DTH and set up box attracted by the advertisement given by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 for Rs.1990/-. The opposite party No.3 delivered one smart card with No.200595982939, but did not give any receipt to that effect. The opposite party No.3 assured the complainant the technicians of opposite party No.1 and 2 will approach the complainant to his house and install and connect the DTH services within 48 hours, but no person came to give connection. Upon which the complainant approached opposite party No.3, but he gave vague reply and instructed the complainant to file a complaint to the Customer Care division vide No.18002009001 stating that opposite party No.3 is only concerned for selling of the Reliance Big TV accessories and he will not provide service and connection. Accordingly, the complainant approached customer care division of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and as per their instructions, the complainant registered his connection vide No.10984177. On 19-9-2008 one Srinivas a technician pertains to opposite party No.1 and 2 approached the complainant and completed the installation, but not activated the connection stating that he has to contact the branch office of opposite party No.2 at Khammam for activation and that on 23-9-2008 finally the connection was activated and the services were provided only for one day and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 were stopped all their services without intimation or without any reason assigned. Again the complainant approached the Branch Office at Khammam instead of verifying and checking the connection, they had given various telephone numbers for contact pertains to different dignitaries of the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. Even after complaining to them, they did not take any action and all the efforts became in vain. The complainant approached the local cable operator to give connection, they also refused to give connection since the complainant purchased DTH connection, which the cable operators opposed and the entire family members suffered untold mental agony due to the deficient services of opposite parties. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties to provide DTH services uninterupetdly and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards exemplary damages for the deficient services of the opposite parties and for untold mental agony suffered by the complainant and to award costs of the complaint or any other relief.

2. The complainant filed his affidavit along with complaint and also filed his chief affidavit and written arguments.

3. Opposite parties filed the following counter.

4. The opposite parties denied that they assured to install and connect within 48 hours. The subject BIG TV connection was activated on the condition that the complainant furnishes requisite proof of address. Since he failed and refused to provide the same, the services that were conditionally provided could not be continued further. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. However, the complainant refused to provide the same and demanded Rs.5,000/- for closing the issue.

5. Hence it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.

6. Upon perusing the material papers on record, now the point for consideration are,

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

opposite parties for providing DTH connection to the

complainant?



2. Whether the complainant is entitled damages of Rs.50,000/-

towards damages, mental agony for not providing DTH

connection by the opposite parties?



Point Nos.1 and 2:

7. It is the contention of the complainant that on 9-9-2008 he purchased reliance BIG TV DTH and set up box from Oppoiste party No.3 for Rs.1990/-. At the time of purchase, opposite party No.3 assured the complainant, oppsoit eparites will approach the complainant house and install and connect the DTH services within 48 hours. But the opposite parties failed to do so. With the great difficulty, that on 23-9-2008 finally the connection was activated and the services were provided for only one day.

8. For which the contention of the opposite parties are that Reliance Big TV DTH connection was activated on the condition that the complainant furnishes requisite proof of address, since he failed and refused to provide the same, the services that were conditionally provided could not be continued further. Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

9. Admittedly, the complainant or opposite parties did not file any documentary evidence to support their rival contentions. Anyhow, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Reliance BIG TV DTH connection from the opposite parties. The only contention raised by the opposite parties that the complainant has to furnish requisite proof of address.

10. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has to furnish requisite proof of his address to the opposite parties, upon which the opposite parties shall provide the DTH services uninterruptedly to the complainant. As such the complaint is fit to be partly allowed.

11. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties to provide the DTH services uninterruptedly to the complainant and complainant is directed to furnish requisite proof of address. Basing on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not awarding any compensation or costs to the complainant.

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 25th day of November, 2009.