IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Wednesday, the 31^st day of  December, 2014.

Filed on 17..02.2011.

Present

1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier  (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D  (Member)

in

C.C.No.50/2011

between

Complainants:-                                                                Opposite Party:-

1.  Sri.Omanakuttan.K.                                         Sun Direct TV (P) Ltd.

     Pakkukandathil                                                 Registered Office

     Vathikulam                                                      367/369, III Floor,

           Mavelikkara -  690 107.                                   Anna Salai

                                                                                     Teynampet

     2.   Sri.Soman.K.                                                    Chennai – 600 018.

           Parangodiyil                                                      (Adv.K.Krishnan)

                 -do-

    3.   Sri.Kuttappan P.T.                                           

    -do-                                                                  

O R D E R

SMT.ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)

This is a remanded matter.  The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed the order on 31.10.2011 allowing the complaint.   Since there was no detailed order, Hon’ble State Commission suo motto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order.  After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter. Complainant has filed this complaint before the Forum on 17.02.2011 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:-

               The complainants availed DTH facility from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1999/- as installation charge in an assurance that the channels will be available with monthly subscription of Rs.110/-.  But the network became failed from July 2010.  Opposite party informed the complainants that their technicians will approach the complainants and will solve that problem.  But, nobody approached for this purpose.  By the end of October 2010, the opposite party advised the viewers to contact their dealer/distributor to turn the dish Antennae towards the new satellite. Even though the complainants contacted the dealers, nobody was willing to solve their problem.  The complainants sent a registered letter to the opposite party on 28.11.2010 demanding the removal of the items installed at their residence by refunding the installation charge along with compensation.  But, nobody came to the home of the complainants to rectify the problem.   Complainants paid monthly subscription without getting popular and favourite full channels.  The deficiency on the part of the opposite party in providing the DTH facility to the complainants caused much mental pain. 

Hence the complaint   is filed.

             2. Version of the opposite party is as follows:-  It is true that the complainants had availed subscriptions from the opposite party and were availing the service as per the terms and conditions entered into between the complainants and opposite party till the unexpected interruption in service due to satellite failure. It is submitted that the said failure was not due to any willful negligence or laches from the part of the opposite party and the said satellite failure is beyond the control and speculation of the opposite party.  Even though the satellite failure caused slight inconveniences to the subscribers of the opposite party which is more than Rs.6,50,000, the opposite party did their level  best to rectify the above said defect by shifting the operations of the network from satellite INSAT – 4B to Measat 3.  While performing the above said shifting, the opposite party took abundant caution and cares to minimize the inconvenience caused to its subscribers due to the said satellite failure.  As a part of the rectification process, when the technician of the locality approached the complainants, they demanded the refund of the installation fee and a huge amount as compensation and did not permit the technician to rectify the defect by changing the angle of elevation of the dish antenna of Sun DTH which absolutely is the property of the opposite party.  The equipments are installed at the subscriber’s premises are the property of the opposite party.  The amount of Rs.1999/- is charged for the initial subscription charge and the subscribers are not eligible to get any amount as compensation.

3.  The complainants filed proof affidavit in tune with the allegations.  Opposite party is also filed proof affidavit and the document produced was marked as Ext.B1. 

4. Points for consideration:

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

ii) If so, the reliefs and costs?

    5.  It is an admitted fact that the complainants have availed DTH connection from the

opposite party and also were availing the services of opposite party.  It is also an admitted fact that the satellite used by the opposite party for the transmission became failure.  According to the complainants, even though the opposite party informed the complainants that the technicians of the opposite party will approach them to rectify their problems, nobody came from the side of the opposite party.  But, opposite party denied this and stated that even though technicians approached them, they are not allowed to rectify the problems.  But the opposite party failed to prove this contention by adducing any evidence.  They did not examine the technicians to prove this statement.  According to the complainants when the other subscribers of the opposite party enjoyed DTH facility, the irresponsible response of the opposite party to the request of the complainants caused much mental pain for them.  Even though they sent a registered letter to the opposite party on 28.01.2010, the opposite party did not arrange anybody to adjust the dish antennae.  The failure on the part of the opposite party in rectifying the problems of the complainants amounts to deficiency in service.  Complainants paid the price for the subscription of service rendered by the opposite party.  If there was no service the opposite party is liable to refund the money which has been paid by the complainants.  In the result, the complaint is allowed.

               The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1999/- (Rupees one thousand nine hundred and ninety nine only) to each complainant.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1500/- towards cost to the complainants.  The complainants are directed to return the equipments erected at their premises to the opposite party simultaneously at the cost and transportation of the opposite party.  The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31^st  day of  December, 2014.

Sd/-  Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

Sd/-  Sri.  Antony Xavier  (Member)

Sd/-  Smt. Jasmine D  (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainants:-  Nil

Evidence of the opposite party:- 

Ext.B1  - Subscription agreement.                                                                 

//True Copy//

By Order,

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent            .

To

            Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

Typed by: Pg/- 

Compared by:-Pr/-