EFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 15th day of March 2018
Filed on : 26-10-2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.600/2016
Between
Dr. Jose Mathew Kulangara : Complainant
BHMS, Homeopathy Physician, (By Adv. Paulson M.J., Paulson M.J.
S/o. K.E. Matahew, Associates, Alwaye-1)
Kulangara House,
Mookkannoor P.O.,
Ernakulam- 683 577.
And
Dish T.V. India Ltd., : Opposite party
1st floor, Siva Nivas, (party-in-person)
K.S.N. Menon Road,
Near South Overbrdige,
Ravipuram-682 016,
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
2. The complainant is a dish T.V. subscriber with subscription No. xxxx97332 for the last several years. On 03-09-2016 he received a message from Dish T.V. in his Telephone showing that there was a big discount on Dish T.V. recharge and Jumbo family pack for 3 months would goes Rs. 300/-. Responding to the said offer the complainant recharged the phone for Rs. 301/-. However, the opposite party had deceptively given receipt for Rs. 301/- on 08-09-2016 and the services were given only for 1 month as against the offer for 2 months. The connection was switched off on 12-10-2016. The complainant therefore pray for a compensation for the defective service through this complaint.
3. Notice was issued to the opposite party M/s. Dish T.V. India Ltd., Kochi. The opposite party appeared and resisted the complaint by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows:
4. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as this Forum has no jurisdiction and there was no cause of action against the opposite party within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant was supposed to recharge his account with Rs. 300/- and not Rs. 301/- as done. Rs. 301/- was configured with some other offer and both were distinct in nature and had different benefits. Therefore if any subscriber recharges his account with Rs. 300/- he would be provided with benefits as per Rs. 300/- offer and similarly if the subscriber recharges his account with Rs. 301/-, he would get the benefit as per offer given under Rs. 301/- offer. These offers are configured with the system and it can not be altered manually, as the system will be automatically provide the benefits as per the payment mode by the subscribers. The complainant himself had admitted that he charged his account with Rs. 301/- whereas as per the SMS sent to him he was supposed to recharge Rs. 300/- to get the Jumbo family pack for 2 months . But since the complainant had recharged with Rs. 301/-. the system had extended the benefit to the complainant as per eligibility of Rs. 301/-. therefore there is no deficiency in service. The complaint has no merit and has therefore to be dismissed.
5. On the above pleadings the following issues were settled for trial. I. Whether the complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
If so, what must be the compensation to be paid?
Reliefs and costs
The evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence Exbt. A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant in addition to the proof affidavit filed by him.
7. The opposite party though filed version did not appear to contest the matter by adducing evidence when the matter came up for evidence in list.
8. Issue Nos. i and ii. The complainant produced Exbts. A1 to A4 print outs of the messages sent to the mobile phone to the complainant. Exbt. A1 dated 03-09-2016 message says as follows “Bis discount on Dish T.V, Recharge – get” Jumbo family pack for 2 months at Rs. 300/- Save Rs. 140/- and also save processing fee Rs. 25/- (T n C)”. The very same message was repeated on 05-09-2016 also. The 3rd message in Exbt. A1 is as follows:
9. “We have received a recharge of Rs. 301/- for VC No. xxxx97332 against total monthly recharge amount of Rs. 275/-, details of balance validity will be sent in 24 hours”. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party did not have any offer for a recharge of Rs. 301/-. The amount of Rs. 301/- was collected by the opposite party as against the total monthly recharge amount of Rs. 275/-. It is therefore clear that the collection of Rs. 301/- was not in tune with any scheme or offer announced by the opposite party. The amount of Rs. 300/- paid was adjusted towards the monthly recharge amount of Rs. 275/-, at the time when the opposite party had intimated the complainant through SMS that there was a big discount by paying Rs. 300/- for 2 months. Exbt. A2 would go to show that the complainant had approached the opposite party to get clarification regarding payment and the opposite party did not fix an appointment or attend the complaint regarding the clarity sought for. Again on 04-10-2016, the complainant received an SMS stating that the recharge date would expire on 04-10-2016 and instructing him to “pay recharge for 2 months on payment of Rs. 550/- and get 2 extra days Free TnC”.
10. Exbt. A2 would go to show that the excess payment of Rs. 25/- made by the complainant at the time of payment of Rs. 301/- has not been adjusted in any payment. Had at the same time the opposite party had denied the offer of discount for Rs. 300/- to the complainant even when an excess payment was collected from him. We find that this practice committed by the opposite party is an unfair trade practice which would warrant payment of compensation thereon. The opposite party did not produce any document to show that they had received Rs. 301/-as per a particular offer and that the complainant had paid Rs. 301/- as per a particular offer and that the complainant had paid Rs. 301/- in furtherance of such a scheme. The case of the complainant that he was given a receipt for Rs. 301/- as against his payment of Rs. 300/- being the recharge amount for two months under the offer has to be accepted. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of Exbt. A1 and A2 messages issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, the issue is found in favour of the complainant.
11. Issue No. iii. Having found issue No. i and ii in favour of the complainant, we find that the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party for having been subjected him to Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service in the matter of switching off the connectivity' Dish T.V after a period of 1 month from 08-09-2016, the date of payment of subscription. We find that the complainant is entitled
(i). to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the opposite party within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The non-payment would entail initiation of RR proceedings and also he would be liable for penal consequences under Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
ii. The complainant is also found entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of this proceedings in addition to the order of compensation as awarded above.
iii. The above said order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 15th day of March 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : Copy of Receipt dt. 03-10-2016
A2 : A C.D.
A3 : Acknowledgment receipt of
Petition
A4 : Copy of screen shot
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
