Haryana

StateCommission

A/608/2018

PARVEEN KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUN DIRECT DTH DISTRIBUTOR. - Opp.Party(s)

SIKANDER KUMAR

30 Jan 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                                                             

First Appeal No :  608 of 2018

Date of Institution: 10.05.2018

Date of Decision : 30.01.2019

 

 

Parveen Kumar (Age 42 years) son of Sh. Devi Shah, resident of 302/15, Sanjay Nagar, Rohtak.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

 

Versus

 

 

1.      Sun Direct DTH Distributor, Jeet Enterprises, L-3, Shri Lal Nath Market, Bhiwani Stand, Rohtak-124001.

 

2.      Nodal Officer-Sun Director TV Private Limited, SCO 292, 2^nd Floor, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh-160030.

 

3.      Registered Office of Sun Director TV Private Limited, Murasoli Maran Tower, 73, MRC Nagar, Main Road, MRC Nagar, Chennai-600028.

 

Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member                      

 

 

Present:               Appellant Shri Parveen Kumar in person

                             Shri Rohit Goswami, counsel for the respondents.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          The complainant, namely, Parveen Kumar has challenged the order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the learned District Consume Forum, Rohtak whereby complaint filed by him under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties stood dismissed.

2.      According to the complainant, on being persuaded by Sun Direct DTH Distributor-opposite party No.1, he had purchased an upgraded set top box offered by it. On 03.03.2017, he registered a complaint regarding defect in the set top box.  The Customer Care Executive told him that the complaint would be resolved by a technician within 48 hours but the same was not resolved.  The complainant again called Care Centre on 06.03.2017 and 07.03.2017.  Only on 09.03.2017 the set top box was changed by the opposite parties.  The complainant had faced mental agony due to the fault in the set top box and bad service of opposite parties.  So much so, the set top box was still not working properly.  Hence, he filed the complaint praying therein that the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to him.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties filed their written version stating therein that on receipt of the complaint, it was attended to promptly.  Opposite party No.1 agreed to provide the set top box to the complainant but as it was not in stock, it could not be supplied within the prescribed period.  It was only on 09.03.2017 that the set top box was replaced.  As there was no intentional delay on the part of the opposite party No.1, prayer was made for dismissing the complaint.

4.      In his evidence, the complainant tendered affidavits Exhibit CW1/A and Ex.CW2/A besides relying upon documents Exhibits C-1 to C-5.

5.      On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered affidavit Exhibit RW1/A.

6.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, learned District Forum while observing that there was reasonable and plausible explanation given by the opposite parties for replacing the set top box after a period of six days instead of two days, which was the policy of the opposite parties.  Accordingly, the complainant had failed to prove any malafide intention on the part of the opposite parties in redressing his complaint.  Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

7.      The State Commission has heard the appellant in person and learned counsel for the respondents besides perusing the record and finds that once the opposite parties had adopted the policy of replacing the set top box within a period of 48 hours, they were required to adhere to the same and in case the complaint was not rectified or the set top box not being supplied within the stipulated period, it can safely be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant deserves to be compensated.  After going through the facts and circumstances, the State Commission finds that it would be appropriate to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in all as composite compensation. 

8.      Resultantly, the appeal is accepted, impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is set aside and the complaint allowed by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- in all as composite compensation to the complainant. In case the compensation is not paid within a period of one month from the date of preparation of copy of the order, the complainant shall be entitled to interest on the aforementioned amount @ 9% per annum.

 

Announced 30.01.2019

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

UK