TATA SKY LIMITED Vs. KAMLA LALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by Tata Sky Limited, opposite party no.1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-X, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short), challenging the concurrent findings of the two consumer fora below.

(2.) Respondent No.1, the complainant, persuaded by the promise of excellent services advertised by the petitioner through the press and the electronic media made a request for the supply of two Tata Sky connections through the Tata Sky Helpline No. 19014256633 on the 28th of December, 2006. The very next day, two set top boxes were delivered at her residence by M/s Chaudhary Agencies, opposite party no.2/respondent no.2, who informed the complainant that Tata Sky engineers will come and energise the system on 31st of December, 2006. However, no one came on that date nor was there any communication with regard to their visit on any other day. On the 1st of January, 2007, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Tata Sky Helpline, she was informed that the engineers would definitely turn up on the 2nd of January, 2007 but even that did not happen. When, she threatened to return the set top boxes, the engineers came in the evening of 4th of January, 2007 but were able to activate only one set top box. When the second set top box could not be activated her request to take it back was also not agreed and the flimsy explanation given was that her second television was not compatible with the second set top box. To be noted that even the first set op box which had been energised failed to function properly for which another complaint had to be made for Tata Sky engineers to attend to it subsequently.

(3.) It was in this background that complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum, who holding the petitioner Tata Sky Limited deficient in rendering service directed them to refund sum of Rs.3774/- being the cost of the set top box and awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony and harassment as well as cost of litigation. Aggrieved upon this order of the District Forum, the present petitioner, who was opposite party no.1 before the District Forum, filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, who has dismissed their appeal.