State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ch.Bulli Reddy, Son Of Veera Reddy, East ... vs Managing Director, M/S. New Era ... on 14 September, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No.619/2011 against C.C.No.36/2010, Dist. Forum-II,East Godavari, Rajahmundry. Between: Ch.Bulli Reddy, Son of Veera Reddy, Aged 52 years, Occupation: Business, D.No.1-299, Shantipuram, Anaparthy, Anaparthy Mandal, East Godavari District. Appellant/ Complainant And 1. Managing Director, M/s. New Era Entertainment Network Ltd., Regd. Off. B-10 , Essel House, Lawrence Road, Delhi -110 035. 2. The Managing Director, M/s. A.S.C. Enterprises Ltd., Regd. Off. B-10 , Essel House, Lawrence Road, Delhi 110 035. 3. Anila Kumar Saraf, M/s. Ankit Enterprises, 6-5-6, Opp. Shyamala Theatre, Main Road, Rajahmundry, AP-533 101. Respondents/ Opp.paties Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.J.Kumaresan Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. V. Gowrisankar RaoR1 & R2 Mr.A.Rama Krishna- R3 QUORUM:THE HONBLEJUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order:(Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** The unsuccessful complainant preferred the above appeal against the order dt. 29.10.2010 of the Dis.
Consumer Forum-II, East Godavari, Rajahmundry, made in C.C.No.36/2010 .
The appellant/complainant filed the complaint against the opp.parties seeking direction to pay an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. towards damages for mental agony from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation.
For the sake of convenience , the parties may be described as they arrayed in the complaint.
The case of the complainant, in brief, as set out in the complaint is that the opp.parties induced him by DTH connection through opposite party no.3, the dealer of opp.parties 1 and 2 after paying charges of Rs.3,990/- towards providing connection. The complainant has paid off the said amount, for connection, on 21.12.2005. At that time, the complainant was given one KUB and LNB and after the installation, the opposite parties agents have visited the premises of the complainant and activated the connection by providing SIM VIEWING CARD, in the first week of January,2006. But, surprisingly the service dish connection of the complainant is not functioning since first week of February,2006. On the complaint given by the complainant, the persons of opposite party promised to verify into the things and attend upon, but they did not do so as promised. The complainant was forced to address a registered letter complaining of the same on 8.2.2006 , but in vain. The complainant felt that this is another method of extorting monies of customers by the opp.parties by offering to sell dish facilities and stabilizer etc. tools on free basis. The complainant purchased the connection, as an ordinary person, to have quality of product at his residence, as he was not have any such connection by then. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, opposite party no.1 filed counter/written version contending that the complainant had taken connection of this opposite party on 21.12.2005 . However, on 6.2.2006 it came to the knowledge of this opposite party that the complainant was pirating the channel MAA T.V. at Anaparthy, East Godavari Dist. The connection of the complainant was deactivated on 6.2.2006 and that too on receipt of the E-Mail on 6.2.2006 of the Distribution Department of MAA T.V. as per the regulations laid down by TRAI. On receipt of the said E Mail, Dish T.V. connection of the complainant was deactivated .
This opp.party further contended that the survey team of this opposite party detected that the viewing card provided to the complainant by opp.party no.1 for the reception of Dish T.V. signals was being used by him for unauthorised transmission/distribution, theft and piracy of Dish T.V.Signals. Thus the complainant was indulging in theft and piracy of Dish T.V.Signals .
This opposite party. Further, contended that this opposite party is a distributor of channels on its DTH platform and is governed by regulations laid down by TRAI from time to time. In terms of the afore said regulations laid down by TRAI, this opposite party is under an obligation to deactivate the connection of any subscriber, within 10 minutes of receipt of the information by the respective broadcaster of channels regarding piracy of channels. .That there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. That the present complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs to this opposite party.
Opposite party no.2 filed memo adopting the written version filed by opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.3 filed counter/written version contending that he is no way connected with the transaction in question and as such, he is not a necessary party to the above proceedings . He did not make publicity, either for himself or on behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2, either at Rajahmundry or anywhere, regarding dish TV connection. He is not an agent of opp.parties 1 and 2. His duty is only to install Dish T.V. and opp.parties 1 and 2 will themselves arrange transmission of net work and provide customer service through toll free number and if any problem arises, it is the sole look out of opposite parties 1 and 2 only. There will not be any damage or loss to the complainant and the complaint is only speculative. The question of rendering any service to the complainant does not arise and the complainant cannot complain any deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry before the District Forum , in order to prove his case , the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 , opp.party no.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B4. Opposite party no.3 also filed proof affidavit but he has not filed any documents.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the above appeal urging that the District Forum had failed to appreciate that the opp.parties have been taking different pleas at different stages and had failed to substantiate with concrete evidence. That the District Forum failed to appreciate that the opposite parties have disconnected the connection. without valid reasons . That the District Forum, though failed to appreciate the evidence on record that there is no evidence to show that the opp.parties have received the valid information from the broadcaster from disconnecting the services. That the District Forum erred in passing the impugned order against the appellant, which is unsustainable in law being directly contrary to the binding law, laid down by the National Commission. Therefore the appeal may be allowed. The complaint may be allowed.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.
Now the points for consideration are
1. Whether the impugned order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. If so , on what grounds?
2. To what relief?
It is not in dispute that the complainant obtained Dish T.V. connection on 21.12.2005 from the opp.parties on payment of Rs.3,990/- and was given one KUB and LNB and that the agents of the opposite parties activated the connection by providing SIM Card for viewing. It is also not in dispute that the activation of Dish was done in the first week of January,2006 and that the connection was not functioning from the first week of February,2006.
The case of the opp.parties 1 and 2 is that the connection of the complainant was deactivated on 6.2.2006 on receipt of the E mail dt.6.2.2006 of Distribution Department of MAA T.V. at 11.33 A.M. and that the V.C.No.01500707996 was involved in the piracy of MAA T.V. and on receipt of the said E Mail and concrete information of its involvement in the account of piracy, the dish T.V. connection of the complainant was deactivated.
As per the regulations of the TRAI, the Telecommunication (Broadcasting Cable Services) Interconnection (Fifth amendment) Regulation, 2009 dt.
17.3.2009 obligation was imposed on DTH service provider to immediately terminate a connection if any information of the said connection is received from any broad caster regarding involvement of said connection in piracy activity. Schedule III of Regulation 8 of the said regulation proposes certain terms and conditions, which would form part of the agreement between the broad caster and DTH service provider.
Further, in the written arguments filed before the District Forum, opposite party no.1 explained the mechanism to the effect that the DTH system offered to the subscriber is specifically monitored through subscriber message system (SMS) and if the button is pressed from the Distributor of the Dish T.V., T.V. set which connected to the set top box would display the viewing card number, which is called Finger Printing Method. If a set top box is used by cable operator in his cable distribution net work, only one channel can be operated by him at one point of time and by Finger Printing Method, T.V. sets connected to a cable net work will be displayed with the viewing card number of the set top box used by the cable operator and hence, unauthorised usage/piracy can be curtailed .
Since the beginning, the assertion of the opp.parties 1 and 2 is that eversince the complainant took the dish T.V. for his personal use at his house, started using it as a cable channel to broadcast MAA T.V.
in Anaparthy such piracy was disabled in finger printing method, consequences of which, the MAA T.V. Management alerted opp.party no.1 to disconnect the Dish T.V. Connection provided to the complainant and that their survey team had detected that the viewing card is being used by the complainant for unauthorised transmission/distribution, theft and piracy of Dish T.V. Signals.
As rightly observed by the District Forum, when the opp.parties 1 and 2 have numerous connections of Dish T.V.
with innumerable subscribers why the connection given to the complainant alone was to be detected if really he was using the said connection for his domestic purpose. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are not going to gain anything by disconnection of the T.V. connection provided to the complainant. Admittedly there is no enmity between the opposite parties1 and 2 on one side and the complainant on the other side. Under these circumstances it is difficult to believe that the complainant alone among so many subscribers to Dish T.V.
was put to inconvenience by disconnecting the supply.
It is an admitted fact that the complainant himself running the SVD cable T.V. net work in his house supplying T.V. channels to several subscribers at Ananparthy. The possibility of the complainant taking Dish T.V. connection for his personal purpose i.e. for the viewing of himself and his family members is highly improbable and such chances are remote. There is ample evidence on record to show that the Progressive Cable Net Work Welfare Association, Andhra Pradesh (regd.no.931/040), District Association, East Godavari is located at D.No.1-229, Shantipuram, Anaparthy. The said address of the association is also the address of SVD Cable T.V. Net Work which is none other than the residence of the complainant, as shown in the complaint. The complainant himself was shown as President of Cable Net Work Welfare Association. As seen from the letter head on which Ex.A2 notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party no.1 is typed, it is clear that the complainant is running SVD Cable Net Work in his residence bearing Dor.No.1-229, Shantipuram, Anaparthi and the Dish T.V. connection from the opposite parties with viewing card in the same house address.
In view of the above facts and circumstances , we find no grounds to disbelieve the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that the complainant, who was running SVD Cable T.V. net work at his house was broadcasting the MAA T.V. channel to different subscribers in the village utilising the Dish T.V. supplied by the opp.parties and such piracy was reflected and detected by MAA TV Distribution Department, who in turn under Ex.B2 E mail message alerted the opposite parties 1 and 2 at Delhi and they disconnected the Dish T.V. connection. Therefore it cannot be said that without any valid reasons, the Dish T.V. connection provided to the complainant was disconnected by opp.parties 1 and 2.
Further, as per the condition no.6 of the terms and conditions for supply of dish T.V. Connection vide Ex.B1 , the opp.parties 1` and 2 are entitled to disconnect service, if it is used for any other purpose other than for viewing the channels for any other purpose, at a place, where such connection was given. The complainant is not permitted to utilise the dish T.V. connection provided to him for the purposes for which it was not given. Therefore under these circumstances, we conclude that the opposite parties 1 and 2 rightly disconnected the said dish T.V. connection provided to the complainant . For all the facts and circumstances discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We find no grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order of the District Forum. But in the circumstance s of the case without costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Pm* Dt.14.9.2012