BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    03^rd DAY OF APRIL 2019

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct Taj TV to produce a video recording of the match as it was telecast to the public on 8^th December 2014, to pass an order to remove the deficiencies of service from future live telecasts of cricket matches, to pass a decree against the OP and in favour of complainant directing the OP to pay to the complainant in a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- and such other reliefs along with costs.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

The sum and substance of the contents of the complaint para No.1 to 6 are self explanatory in respect of functioning of OP in telecasting the live cricket matches.  In particularly the telecast of the 2^nd one day International between India and South Africa at Kingsmead Durban on 08^th December 2013.  The relation is between the complainant and the OP is explained in para-7 of the complaint.

That this complaint is being made in relation to Taj TV’s telecast of live cricket matches in general, and specifically in relation to the telecast of the 2^nd One Day International between India and South Africa at Kingsmead Durban on 8 December 2013.  Complainant viewed this match on Ten Cricket while in his residence, at the address mentioned above.  Complainant makes this complaint in his capacity as a consumer under section 2(d) of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986.  Following is in indicative (non-exhaustive) list of instances of deficient quality in telecast during the above mentioned match:

1. This Match was played to honour the death of Nelson Mandela, one of the world greatest leaders.  After the 19^th over of the South African batting there was a brief special program including some interviews of people closely connected with cricket and Nelson Mandela.  Ten Cricket chose not to show the entire special program and instead telecast an extremely noisy advertisement of Daikin air conditioners.  The viewer was aware that the interviews were going on at this point, but all that could be seen was a screenshot of the ground with an extremely noisy (though innovative) advertisement of an air conditioner appearing from beneath the earth.  In fact, at some point during the special program, Ten Cricket even chose to go into full-fledged advertisements (not just the pop up advertisements while showing a screen shot of the ground)

2. At 19.4 overs, viewers were forced to miss an action replay because Ten Cricket chose to show an advertisement mid-over.  Replays are an important part of a live cricket telecast, and such steps by Ten Cricket are a significant irritant.

3. The last ball of the 21^st bowler was hit to a fielder, and the fielder had just collected the ball by which time Ten Cricket went into a commercial break.  The ball was still in play and the commentator had not said the game score which is usually an indicator that a commercial break is coming up.

4. Point number (iii) was repeated after the 23^rd over (by V.Kohli), 24^th Over (by R.Ashwin) and 25^th over (by R.Jadeja).  In fact, after the last ball of the 26^th over (by R.Ashwin), Ten Cricket chose to go into a commercial break before the ball had even been collected by the fielder.

5. Telecast did not resume in time for the start of the 27^th over and viewers were forced to miss a part of the first ball that was bowled.  This was once again repeated before the 31^st over where such a large part of the first ball had already happened, such that viewers could not even tell who the bowler was until he was shown walking back to his mark for the next ball.  Viewers were similarly forced to miss the first ball of the 33^rd over was as well.

6. At the start of the 28^th over, there was an interview with the South African coach.  However, telecast from the commercial break returned so late that viewers did not have the good fortune of seeking/hearing this interview.  Besides the telecast of the cricketing action, interviews of players/officials and other frills are important value additions to watching live cricket telecast on TV.  When channels like Ten Cricket obtain the rights to telecast matches, they are obliged to telecast these aspects of the event as well.

The main grievance of the complainant is the advertisement time is more than the live telecast of the said cricket match.  In this context there is a deficiency of service on the part OP.  Further it is fairly significant complaint and impacts a large segment of the country’s population.  The telecast of live cricket is an extremely lucrative business activity for Taj TV and worth millions of dollars.  In this context he sought for compensation to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs is being claimed through this complaint.  When he issued notice to the OP there was no any response.  Further submits that the issue of excessive and intrusive advertising has been felt by other segments of the public as well.  There are at least 25 members from the public who have responded to the particular post.  The disappointment and frustration of the viewers is evident from the language in the comments.  Hence on this ground and other grounds complainant pray for allowing the complaint.

3. On issuance of notice, OP did appear and filed the version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and hence same has to be dismissed in limine.  So also the complaint is with an ulterior motive, sheer falsities and has suppressed the true and actual facts of the case.  The OP has specifically denied the allegations made by the complainant.  It is specific plea taken by the OP is that, the complaint filed by the complainant is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation which cannot be espoused before this Forum, hence the complaint is liable to be rejected in limine.  Further submits that the complainant in his entire complaint as nowhere stated with regard to jural relationship with OP proving that he is a consumer, which is a basic necessity to initiate the complaint under reply.  In view of the same, the said complaint is not maintainable and hence the same is liable to be rejected.  OP further submits that on going through the contents of the entire complaint it is apparent the complaint filed by the complainant is only with regard to the excessive advertisements during the telecast of cricket match held between South Africa and India.  The complaint is not maintainable and the grievance of the complainant cannot be addressed in the complaint in view of the fact that there is no deficiency of service by the OP which is the basic ingredient for this Forum to adjudicate.  On this ground also the complaint is liable to be rejected.

OP has also given reply to the para wise contents of the complaint filed by the complainant.

For the reasons mentioned above, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Sri.Himanshu Kaushik, Authorized Representative of OP submitted evidence by way of affidavit.  Both parties have produced certain documents.  OP submitted written arguments.  We have also heard oral arguments.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as version filed by OP.  OP specifically contended nowhere stated with regard to the complainant jural relationship with OP to prove that he is a ‘consumer’, which is a basic necessity to initiate the complaint under reply.  In this context we placed the reliance of contents of complaint wherein pleading is lacking to establish that he is a ‘consumer’ comes within the purview of section 2(1)(d) of the C.P Act.  In para-7 of his complaint he has stated “I viewed this match on Ten Cricket while in my residence, at the address mentioned above”.  As to know whether he has subscribed to the OP for telecasting the live cricket, there is no any evidence on record.  Further looking to the entire contents of the complaint, complaint filed by the complainant is in the form of representative capacity for which he has not taken any permission from this Forum U/s.12(1) (c) of the C.P Act.  When such being the fact we don’t find any substance in the contention taken by the complainant stating that there was a deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Accordingly we answered point No.1.

8. Point No.2: In view of our findings on point no.1, this issue does not survive for consideration.  Accordingly it is answered.

          9. Point No.3: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed as not maintainable.

Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 03^rd day of April 2019)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 28.11.2014.

                      Mr.Bishen Jeswant,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party 20.11.2015.

Himanshu Kaushik.

Document produced by the Opposite party.

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*