BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 266/2010 Filed on 19.08.2010

Dated : 31.08.2011

Complainants :

1. Jilla Upabhokthru Samithi, Reg. No. 893/89, North Nada, Fort P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023 represented by its General Secretary D. Venugopal.

    

2. Gangadharan N, S/o Nanu, Ganga priya, Mepookada, Malayinkeezhu P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. V. Jyothi)

Opposite parties :

1. The Manager, Sun Direct TV(P) Ltd., #4/500L, 2^nd Floor, PV Sreedharan Road, Kumbalam – 682 506.

    

2. The Proprietor, S.B. Agencies, Balaramapuram.

This O.P having been heard on 16.08.2011, the Forum on 31.08.2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Facts of the case are as follows:- The 1^st complainant in this case is a consumer organization and 2^nd complainant is a senior citizen. The 2^nd complainant and his wife at their old age life, with an intention to make some meaningful entertainment, took a connection of 1^st opposite party through its agent, 2^nd opposite party, a Sun Direct DTH Services Smart Card SL No. 4144649757 by paying Rs. 2,250/- on 25.02.2009. After two days he got the connection. But after a few days, the supply was disconnected and the 2^nd complainant informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party. But 2^nd opposite party never cared to take any action. The 2^nd complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,310/- and advance for two years connection. They paid this amount as the same will not interrupt the peaceful enjoyment of their entertainment daily programmes. On each complaints the opposite parties gave him a register number. Once it was 200. The complaint registered on 10.05.2010 bears register No. 205. Without attending the actual problem, the 2^nd opposite party always drag the matter. Thus the 2^nd complainant registered a complaint with 1^st opposite party's customer care centre, Ernakulam on 11.05.2010 which bears a register No. 1-243568. They assured a speedy remedy within 24 hours. But till date no step has been taken either by the 1^st opposite party or by the 2^nd opposite party to attend the problem and to cure the defect. For this reason the complainant and his wife missed most of their favourite programmes. Hence this complaint.

In this case the 2^nd complainant has filed proof affidavit and has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The opposite parties in this case accepted notice of this complaint issued from this Forum, but they never turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite parties remained ex-parte.

The points to be ascertained are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs?

    

Points (i) & (ii):- The 1^st complainant in this case is Jilla Upabhokthru Samithi and 2^nd complainant is a senior citizen. The 2^nd complainant took a Sun Direct DTH Services Smart Card SL. No. 4144649757 connection of 1^st opposite party through the 2^nd opposite party, its agency on 25.02.2009 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,25/-. But after a few days the supply was disconnected and the complainant informed the matter to the 2^nd opposite party. But there was no response from their side. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,310/- in advance for the uninterrupted service of the opposite parties for 2 years. After the repeated complaints, the complainant was getting the connection for some time. For this reason the complainant and his wife have missed most of their favourite programmes. The complainant registered complaints before the opposite parties several times, but they did not turn up to cure the defects in the connection. The 2^nd complainant had paid Rs. 3,560/- for this connection, but due to the deficient service of the opposite parties, he is not getting the connection uninterruptedly. The opposite parties have not cared to rectify the defects. In this circumstance, the complainant does not need this interrupted service. Hence he filed this complaint before this Forum to get the refund, the expenses incurred for this connection and to direct the opposite parties to take the product back. To prove his contentions he has filed proof affidavit and produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the Delivery Chalan dated 25.02.2009 issued by 2^nd opposite party. As per this document the complainant has paid Rs. 2,250/-. Ext. P2 is the recharge coupon No. T013100000090938 worth Rs. 1,310/-. Ext. P3 is the copy of notice issued by 1^st complainant to the opposite parties. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged since the opposite parties are remaining ex-parte. From the evidence adduced by the complainant, we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite parties to ensure uninterrupted service to the customers. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 3,560/- to the 2^nd complainant along with Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which 12% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of August 2011.

Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 266/2010

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Delivery chalan No. 965 dated 25.02.2009

P2 - Sundirect Recharge card.

P3 - Copy of notice issued by 1^st complainant to opposite parties.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

Sd/-

PRESIDENT