The Revision petitioner had filed the consumer complaint No.1794 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Delhi North West District. The complaint was against Dish TV India Limited and two others. The matter concerned taking of Direct to Home (DTH) facility from the Respondents, for viewing of TV programs. Allegedly, from the very beginning the quality of signals was poor and the channels in the selected package were changed by the service provider frequently. Even the cost of the service was increased. Feeling cheated by the same, he filed the consumer complaint with the following prayer:-
“a) Immediately open all the “FREE TO AIR CHANNELS” for viewing of the complainant without any terms or conditions.
b) Pay damage of Rs.40,000/- for killing the valuable time and harassment caused to the complainant.
c) Pay all the legal expenses including the cost of the notice amounting to Rs.25000/-.
d) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deemed fit and proper.”
2. The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that it was without any merit. While doing so, the District Forum also observed that:-
“In this case the only question for consideration is as to whether the recharge coupon was enforced in accordance with its terms by the Ops. It is the case of the complainant that he had recharged his account with Rs.500/- on 19.3.2009. As per him, under the scheme OP1 had offered Rs.100/- for ALA-CARTE-PACK and Rs.400/- for MOVIES ON DEMAND. It is alleged by the complainant that he was charged for two movies which he had ordered against the terms and conditions of the recharge coupon.
The Ops in their written statement have explained that as per the terms and conditions of the recharge coupon a subscriber was entitled to view channel of the package taken by him as per the subscription paid along with the free ALA-CARTE CHANNELS worth 20% of the renewal fees paid and free movies on demand worth 80% of the renewal fees pay. It was further explained that it was clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions of the said offer that subscriber would be entitled to view only those movies which are worth Rs.50/- and 62/- only. In the case of the complainant he had ordered two movies namely AA DEKHEN JARA on 22.4.2009 and TASVEER 31.5.2009 both costing Rs.75/- each. The Ops have filed Annexure A-3 and Annexure A-4 in support of their plea.
We have gone through Annexure A-3 which provide the terms and conditions of recharge fee scheme and contains a condition that the recharge value can be utilized by the subscriber to order for movies worth Rs.50/- and Rs.62 /-. We are, therefore convinced that the present complaint is without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
3. The appeal filed by Shri Ashish Dahiya against the above order was dismissed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 7.5.2013 for non-appearance of the appellant. He has now filed this Revision Petition against dismissal of his appeal by the State Commission.
4. Shri Ashish Dahiya has been heard and the records produced by him have been carefully perused. The case of the Revision Petitioner is that on the day preceding the date fixed before the State Commission, he suffered from severe stomach pain and was admitted to a private nursing home. Due to this, he was unable to appear before the State Commission on 7.5.2013. He also had informed his Advocate and had requested him to attend the proceedings before the State Commission. It is however, admitted in the revision petition that his counsel was busy in another court and therefore, had failed to attend proceedings before the State Commission. In support of his contention that he had fallen ill, he has filed a medical slip from Satyabhama Hospital, Najfgarh Road, Nangloi Delhi, dated 7.5.2013. It shows that he had suffered from pain in the lower abdomen ‘1 ½ hours before- today’. A few medicines and tests including hemogram, x-ray and ECG were prescribed.
5. This certificate is dated 7.5.2013 and does carry any indication of the condition of the patient prior to that date. It also carries no indication of developments subsequent to 7.5.2013. It is strange that having prescribed five medicines and three tests, there is nothing to show the outcome, vis a vis the condition of the patient. Clearly, this certificate is nothing more than an attempt to create evidence in support of the claim that the revision petitioner/Complainant had a problem on the date of hearing before the State Commission. It runs also counter to his claim that he had fallen unwell on previous date. It is therefore rejected.
6. In the above background, the revision petition is held to be without any merit and is dismissed as such. No orders as to costs.
