Sr Sri.B.NARAYANAPPA

Pr   President

1.      The complainant Sri S.Nanjaiah has filed this complaint against opposite party No.1 Harisha, Chamarajanagar City, Opposite party No.2 Taka Sky Ltd., Mumbai praying to direct the opposite party no.2 to cancel the license issued to the opposite party no.1 to distribute, recharge or any other transaction regarding the Tata Sky DTH connection and direct the opposite parties to recharge the existing DTH connection of the complainant for one year validity  order and register a criminal case against the opposite party no.1. Under section 420 of IPC and direct the opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards physical and mental agony and cost of the litigation and direct the 1^st opposite party to issue authenticated form of tax invoice to its customers and to grant such other relief 

2.   The brief facts are that:-

The 2^nd opposite party is an Indian Direct Broadcast Satellite Provider Transmitting digital Satellite Television and audio to households in India. The 1^st opposite party is a distributor under the 2^nd opposite party. On 21.03.2019 the complainant has met the 1^st opposite party in order to recharge his Tata SkyDTH connection bearing customer ID number 1254147885. After verifying the tariff the opposite party told complainant that he is having plan of Rs.270/- per month and in order to get recharge for six months it amounts to Rs.1,620/- accordingly the complainant paid said sum to the 1^st opposite party and went back home thinking that the 1^st opposite party might have recharged for six months. But on 20.04.2019 the complainant received an SMS to Registered mobile number from the 2^nd opposite party stating that the connection has been deactivated due to low balance. As per the amount paid by the complainant for six months the connection would have been up to 21.09.2019. But it was utter surprise to the complainant that 1^st opposite party has not recharged amount for six months instead misused the money when he explains about misuse opposite party no.1 recharged for one more month, again the complainant received the same SMS on 21.05.2019 due to disconnect the DTH connection, again complainant approached the 1^st opposite party. Therefore the opposite party no.1 has recharged for one more month again on 25.06.2019 the complainant has received an SMS from the 2^nd opposite party stating disconnection of the DTH. The complainant contacted 1^st opposite party over phone number 8618645423 but the 1^st opposite party could not receive the callhence the complainant met 1^st opposite party but he has given evasive answer and denied to make recharge for remaining 3 months for Rs. 810/- and he has misused the amount of Rs.810/- and thereby committed cheatingmalpractice and negligence. Due to the conduct of the opposite party no.1, the reputation of the 2^nd opposite party also be diminished and opposite party no.2 has also failed to provide good service to his customers the amount collected by opposite party no.1 from the complainant is taxable, but the opposite party no.1 has not issued receipt to defraud the department of tax. Due to the negligent act of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered lot of mental agony, hence this complaint.

3.    After registration of this complaint, notices were ordered to be issued to opposite party nos.1 and 2. In response to notice opposite parties appeared through their counsel. Opposite party no.1 has not filed version. 2^nd opposite party has filed version, denying all the  materials averments made in the complaint except admitting some of the averments made in the complainant which are not specifically deined and contended that the complainant has not approached this commission with clean hands and has suppressed the true and correct facts and documents, hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further contended that the complainant subscribed to the opposite parties Tata Sky DTH connection with one standard set top box which was activated on 12.11.2017 with subscriber ID number 1254147885  for which an amount of Rs.241.64/- was debited towards subscription account for the month of February 2019. And admitted that the subscription account of the complainant was disconnected due to insufficient balance in the account, and the opposite party had duly informed the complainant in the form of SMS sent to the registered mobile number to recharge his subscription account for uninterrupted viewing experience, there was no deficiency in service nor any negligence on the part of the opposite party no.2. The complainant has replied upon the understanding agreement that he had with the opposite party no.1, in support of his allegation to which the opposite party is neither a party to or has any knowledge of the said understanding agreement. The opposite party no.2 being service provider sent SMS to the complainant to recharge his account and the opposite party no.2 furnished recharges in the complainant subscription account from March 2019 as follows:-

4.  Further contended that the complainant did not approach the opposite party no.2 at any point of time prior to filing of the complaint and had no any knowledge of what transpired between the opposite party no.1 and the complainant the act of the complainant to directly approach the opposite party no.1 clearly indicates that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party 2. The opposite party no.2 has no privy of the contract with the opposite party no.1 and are not responsible for the actions of the opposite party no.1. The complainant himself interacting directly with opposite party no.1 therefore  for the act of the opposite party no.1 the opposite party no.2 cannot be held liable. The opposite party no.2 having license for distribution/transmission of private satellite television channels issued by the ministry of information and broadcasting and denied that the opposite party no.1 is a distributor of the opposite party no.2. The opposite party no.2 has not issued any license nor does it have any contractual arrangement with the opposite party no.1. Therefore contends that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs hence prays to dismiss the complaint.

5.         The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as PW.1 and got marked certain documents.  On the other hand opposite party no.2 has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1 and produced certain documents.

6. We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The counsel for opposite party no.2 has also filed written arguments.

7.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complainant prove the alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought for?
2.  What order?

8.   Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :-In the negative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

9.   Point No.1:-   It is not in dispute that the complainant having Tata Sky DTH connection bearing customer ID number 1254147885 said fact is admitted by the opposite party no.2. It is the contention of complainant that on 21.03.2019 he met opposite party no.1 to recharge his Taka Sky DTH Connection opposite party no.1 after verifying tariff told that the complainant  having plan of Rs.270/- per month. Therefore the complainant agreed to get recharge for six months and paid Rs.1,620/- to the opposite party no.1. thinking that the opposite party no.1 will recharge Tata Sky DTH connection for six months. But to his shock and surprise on 20.04.2019 he received SMS massage to his registered mobile from opposite party no.2 stating that the connection has been de-activated due to low balance. As per payment made by complainant for six months the connection of Tata Sky DTH of the complainant would have to be up-to on 21.09.2019  but opposite party no.1 has not recharged. Therefore he approached opposite party no.1 and told about he receiving of SMS of de-activation of his Tata Sky DTH connection from opposite party no.2 and told opposite party no.1that he has misused his money, therefore the opposite party no.1 recharged for one more month. Again on 21.05.2019 complainant received same SMS at that time after he approached opposite party no.1 once again the opposite party no.1 recharged for another month and on 25.06.2019 also the complainant received same SMS. But opposite party no.2 did not respond and not recharged the Tata Sky DTH connection and contended that the opposite party no.1 recharged only for three months i.e., of Rs.270X3=810/- and misused remaining amount of Rs.810/- and thereby not only cheated the complainant but also committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which act of opposite party no.1 also brought bad name to opposite party no.2. in view of the mal practice committed by opposite party no.1 who is the licensee/ disturbers under opposite party no.2.

10.  The above allegation of the complainant has been totally denied by the opposite party no.2 and also denied the contention of the complainant that opposite party no.1  is a licensee and agreement holder for recharge of Tata Sky DTH connection with opposite party no.2 and the opposite party no.2 specifically contended that the complainant directly approached opposite party no.1 and not approached opposite party no.2 about his complaint and the opposite party no.2 having no privy of contract  with opposite party no.1 and not responsible for the action of the opposite party no.1. The opposite party no.2 has not issued any license I nor does it have any contractual with arrangement of opposite party no.1. Therefore the opposite party no.2 is not at all responsible for the acts alleged to have been committed by the opposite party no.1. hence contended that the opposite party no.1 is only responsible for the alleged acts said to have been committed by  by him as alleged by the complainant and the opposite party no.2 has furnished the table regarding subscription amount paid by complainant from March 2019  in support of its contention the opposite party no.2 has produced certain documents as per annexure 2 the transaction history in respect of customer ID number 1254147885 and statement issued by opposite party  no.2  at annexure no.3 regarding subscription amount paid by the complainant from March 2019 till 16.08.2019. So from the documentary evidence produced by opposite party no.2 it is crystal clear that as per the table furnished in para 5 of the version of opposite party no.2. the complainant paid subscription amount towards recharge of  his Tata Sky DTH connection customer ID number 1254147885. Therefore it is apparent on record that the opposite party no.2 is not at all responsible for alleged act said to have been committed by opposite party no.1 regarding receipt of subscription amount of Rs.1,620/- from the complainant recharge for six  months.

11. It is the contention of the complainant that the opposite party no.1 had received Rs.1620/- from him for recharge of Tata Sky DTH connection for six months, but no authenticated receipt has been issued by the opposite party no.1. the complainant has got marked Ex.P1 a bit of white paper containing handwriting mentioning of Rs. 1,620/- and affixing the seal of opposite party no.1. The exhibit P1 is not a authenticated document such a peace of paper may be issued by any party by creating it, therefore it has no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Hence Ex.P1 cannot be relied upon, and it cannot be said that opposite party no.1 has issued Ex.P1 receipt for having received Rs.1,620/-from the complainant. Ex.P2 and P3 are the SMS massages sent by opposite party no.2 to complainant stating balance and account due and finally Tata Sky DTH connection ID number 1254147885 has been de activated due to low balance. Ex.P4 is the SMS showing new balance.

12. Under the facts  and circumstances of the case and in view of the complainant has failed to produce the authenticated receipt issued by opposite party no.1 for having received Rs 1,620/- from him to get recharge Tata Sky DTH connection bearing ID number 1254147885, the allegation made by complainant that in spite of the receipt of Rs.1,620/- by opposite party no.1 to recharge for six months at the rate of 270/- per month and the opposite party no.1 recharged for one month and subsequently for two more month and misused an amount of Rs.810/- cannot be believed and the accepted and there is no proofs to show that the complainant  has paid a sum of Rs. 1,620/- to the opposite party no.1 and the opposite party no.1 recharged only for 3 months  i.e.,  Rs. 270X3= 810/- and misused the remaining amount of Rs.810/- hence complainant failed to prove payment of Rs.1,620/- to opposite party no.1 and the complainant also failed to prove that the opposite party no.1 is a licensee and having  privy of contract to recharge Tata Sky DTH connection with opposite party no.2. Therefore we are of the opinion that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the allegation made in the complaint against opposite party no.1 and 2. Hence complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought in the complaint.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

13. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

     The complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

     No order of cost.

     Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.