TATA SKY LIMITED Vs. KAMLA LALL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are that the appellant OP -1 had agreed to supply D.T.H. service to complainant s two TVs in connection of which OP -1 through OP -2 M/s Chaudhary Agencies got delivered two set top boxes to her for Rs. 3774/ - each and promised to activate the services on 31.12.2006, while it s engineers despite repeated calls reached the complainant s house to activate on 4.1.2007 and could active D.T.H. service to only one TV. On quarry from her they failed to state as to what was wrong with the other TV that DTH service was not activated for it. The complainant therefore asked the engineers to take back one set top box which they refused as it had opened. Even service for the one TV provided was deactivated on 22.1.2007, which was restored after a day. The complainant therefore filed a complaint against the OPs for return of her money alongwith interest for the one set top box after accepting it s return, to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/ - and the litigation costs Rs. 5,000/ -.

(2.) THE OP -1 opposed the claim and filed the written statement stating that the two boxes were supplied to her on 29.12.2006, she had asked for their installation on 1.1.2007 out of which one was activated on 4.1.2007 and the other could not be activated because the other TV set, did not contain the required gadgets, and deactivation on 22.1.2007 for 24 hours was due to the technical snag, for no fault of the OP.

(3.) ON scrutiny of the evidence of the parties the District Consumer Forum held that the appellant OP had promised to activate the service on 31.12.2006 but despite that the complainant reminded the OP on 1.1.2007, 3.1.2007 the service for the one TV was activated on 4.1.2007 for which the OP was clearly deficient. The District Consumer Forum also found the OP at fault while refusing to take away the other set box as it was opened.