D.O.F:19/06/2018

D.O.O:12/12/2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.97/18

                  Dated this, the 12^th    day of December 2018

PRESENT:

SRI.ROY PAUL                              : PRESIDENT

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

TV Narayanan,

S/o Ambadi

Roopa Nivas

Velaswaram P O Haripuram                                     :Complainant

Aanandasramam (Via) 671531

1.       Dish Infra Services Private limited

36/854 Journalist Road                                             

Judge Avanue,kaloor kochin

Ernakulam Pin 682017.

                                                                                         : Opposite Parties

2.       Hignet Data N Divces

          C/o HignetCommunications

          first floor.Highmath complex

          Kanhangad. 671315

                                                          O R D E R

SRI.ROY PAUL     :PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party   to pay sum of Rs. 4, 50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.

The case of the complainant in brief:-

            The complainant is a subscriber of ‘Dish TV’, due to the repeated defect of the set top box provided by the opposite party the complainant and family could not watch their TV on several occasions.  Though the complainant purchased 3 or 4 set top boxes from the opposite parties by spending the prices of the boxes, the complainant could not get pictures.  The special package for the world cup was also recharged by the complainant, but he could not watch the world cup due to the further and the repeated defects of the set top box provided by the opposite parties.  Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practise on the part of opposite parties the complainant has suffered much hardship, inconvenience, mental agony, loss of time and money.  Hence the complaint.

            Since the opposite parties failed to appear and submit their version before the Fora both the opposite parties were set exparte. 

On the basis of the rival contentions in the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Reliefs and cost?

The evidence consists of the chief examination of the complainant and Exts A1 and A2 documents marked on his side.

ISSUE NO: 1

Complainant adduced evidence by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint.  He relied on Exts A1 and A2 documents also to substantiate his case.  According to him due to repeated and incurable defect of the set top box provided by the opposite party he could not watch the TV program.  The world cup telecasts also have been missed for him.  There is grave deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and the complainant has suffered much hardship, mental agony, inconvenience loss of time and money. Complaint may be allowed.

      The opposite parties were absolutely failed either to cross examine the complainant or to adduce any rebuttal evidence before the Fora in the absence of the rebuttal /contra evidence from the opposite parties we  hold that there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant or his evidence.  So we the Fora decided to dispose the case on the basis of the available evidence on merit.  On perusal of the pleadings, documents and evaluation of the evidence tendered by the complainant before the Fora we are of the considered view that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the issue No: 1 found against opposite parties and answered accordingly.

ISSUE NO: 2

      As discussed above due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered much hardship, inconvenience, mental agony, loss of time and money. The complainant could not watch the TV programmes continuously.  So we hold that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation along with Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.  Thus the issue No: 2 is also accordingly answered

      In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties No:  1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of the order.  Failing which the said sum of Rs. 10,000/- will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realisation.  Complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

MEMBER                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

Exibits Marked

A1-User Manual

A2-Viewing card

MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/