Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has got a TV connection from the OPs known as Sky View TV by his view membership. It is alleged inter alia that he complainant has paid regular dues to the OPs but did not get the expected service from the OPs. It is alleged inter alia that from March, 2014 except DD 1 & DD 2 no other channels were seen by the complainant. Complainant lodged complaint before the OPs over phone but no action was taken. Complainant also lodged complain in writing on 16.4.2014  but  the OPs sent one mechanic on different dates who asked the complainant to install set top boxes. On 3.5.2014 complainant paid Rs.1,300/- to the OPs towards cost of set-top boxes and after request repeatedly the set-top boxes were made available and activated on 10.5.2014. Even if the set-top boxes were installed and activated on 12.5.2014, the complainant again sent complaint to the OPs. Without any rectification of mistake on 6.6.2014 complainant got a bill of Rs.652.73 which was disputed by the complainant. However, complainant paid Rs.400/- out of that arrear on 9.6.2014 but the OPs disconnected the connection with effect from 25.6.2014. In spite of the request that was not restored. For the inaction of the OPs the complainant was  forced to purchase to more set-top boxes from Airtel Dish TV on payment of Rs.4,000/-. Finding no other way, complainant filed the complaint asking for compensation for mental agony etc.

4.      It appears from the DFR that the OPs have appeared and filed written version. In that written version OPs have challenged the jurisdiction of the learned District Forum. Also it is stated that there is no cause of action to file the case and all the allegations are false. It is also stated that the complaint is barred by section – 14 of the TRAI Act. They admitted to have installed the set-top boxes and as per digital specification the service was provided through mechanical process. As the payment was not made, the service was automatically disabled. They have denied about any deficiency in service or causing any mental agony to the complainant.

5.      After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-

“ xxx   xxx   xxx

The dispute is allowed against the OPs.

1. OPs will refund a sum of Rs.1300/- to the complainant towards cost of set-top boxes as paid by hm.

2. OPs will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony, inconveniences etc including cost of litigation. The complainant will return the set-top boxes purchased from OPs for Rs.1300/- at the time of receiving the above amount from the OPs.

OPs will pay the complainant  the above amount (as stated vide sl. No. 1 & 2 of this order) within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order by the OPs failing which the complainant is a liberty to take shelter of this court under C.P.Act, 1986.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant  submitted that  he challenged the impugned order for modification of the  same by enhancing the amount of compensation because for two months due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs could not see the TV net work and as such got mental agony and harassment. Hence, the appeal. No appeal is filed by the OPs.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It is settled in law that onus lies on the complainant to prove the case and deficiency in service of OPs. Since the OPs have not challenged the impugned order, they are deemed to have admitted that there is deficiency in service by the OPs as per the allegation of the complainant.

9.      The only question is to be decided in this case whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded.

10.    When it is admitted fact that complainant has requested for set-top box and deposited Rs.1,300/- but the set-top box did not function well and he could not see the TV network for two months, there is definitely deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Now a days the TV has become essential commodity under component for entertainment for providing news music, drama, picture etc and minus that the people suffer for mental agony and harassment. Thus, we are of the view tht OPs being a service provider having failed to serve as per the mandate, must pay adequate compensation. Therefore, we allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation to Rs.10,000/- payable by the OPs to the complainant for the mental agony, harassment and inconvenience within 45  days from today and   rest of the impugned order remained unaltered.

11.    The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.