LI Network
Published on: December 15, 2023 at 11:40 IST
The West Delhi bench of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, consisting of Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member), and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member), recently dismissed a consumer complaint against Tata Play.
The complaint was rejected on the grounds of contested facts that could not be resolved in the summary proceedings mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Commission reiterated that cases involving disputed facts, criminality, and tortuous conduct are not suitable for adjudication by Consumer Commissions and suggested that such matters be pursued in Civil Courts for a more comprehensive resolution.
Background:
The complaint was filed by Mr. Rajiv Raizada, who purchased a Tata Play DTH connection in August 2009. Following a transfer to Delhi in January 2010, he sought disconnection of the service, but due to a shortage of technicians, he was instructed to handle the disconnection himself. After relocating to Delhi in March 2010, he requested reinstallation, which was completed in 3-5 days. Despite not using the service for two months, Tata Play charged him, stating that he had not instructed them to suspend the service during relocation.
Issues also arose with contradictory messages regarding account balance and subscription renewal through different channels. The complainant faced service discontinuation in January 2013 for the English Movie pack, despite making payments and confirming subscriptions. Discrepancies in statements and issues with validity periods led to confusion. Despite efforts to resolve the matter, the complainant’s grievances persisted, leading to the filing of a consumer complaint against Tata Play.
Commission’s Observations:
The District Commission, after a thorough examination, noted the presence of disputed facts in the case, particularly related to small payments and adjustments. Despite the complainant’s dissatisfaction with Tata Play’s explanations, the Commission observed that he continued to use the services without interruption.
Given the nature of the dispute and the dissatisfaction expressed by the complainant, the Commission deemed it inappropriate for summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. It suggested that the matter be pursued in Civil Courts, where detailed evidence could be presented for a more comprehensive resolution.
The Commission cited the case of City Union Bank Ltd. v. R. Chandramohan, where it was established that cases involving highly disputed questions of facts or tortious acts, criminality, and fraud could not be adequately decided by Consumer Commissions.
Conclusion:
In light of the disputed facts and the nature of the complaint, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the case against Tata Play. The complainant was advised to seek redress in a Civil Court with appropriate jurisdiction.
Case Title: Rajiv Raizada vs Shri Harit Nagpal, Chief Executive, TATA Play Limited and Anr.
