Consumer Commissions Not Fit For Cases With Disputed Facts, West Delhi Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Tata Play

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Delhi bench comprising Ms Sonica Mehrotra (President), Ms Richa Jindal (Member) and Mr Anil Kumar Koushal (Member) dismissed a complaint against TATA Play on account of disputed facts which could not be deciphered in the summary proceedings undertaken under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The District Commission reiterated that cases involving highly disputed questions of facts, criminality and tortuous conduct are not fit to be dealt with by the Consumer Commissions. The Complainant was given the freedom to approach any Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction to seek resolution. Brief Facts: Mr Rajiv Raizada (“Complainant”) purchased a TATA Play DTH connection for personal use in August 2009 in Chennai. In January 2010, following a transfer to Delhi, he contacted the TATA Play's helpline to request disconnection and packing of the dish for safe transportation to Delhi. However, he was informed to handle the disconnection himself due to a shortage of technicians. After settling down in Delhi in the third week of March 2010, the Complainant contacted TATA Play to reinstall the dish at his new address, and the reinstallation was done in 3-5 days. Despite not availing of the DTH service for two months following this relocation to Delhi, the Complainant was charged for this period as TATA Play asserted that he had not instructed them to suspend the service during the relocation. Additionally, the Complainant paid for annual subscription packs to TATA Play for which he should have received associated discounts. However, he encountered issues with contradictory messages regarding his account balance and subscription renewal date through the set-top box and his registered mobile. Additionally, discrepancies in statements received from TATA Play led to confusion about the cost and validity of the subscribed packs. Despite making payments and confirming subscriptions through the call centre, the complainant faced service discontinuation for the English Movie pack in January 2013. Subsequent complaints were not satisfactorily resolved. In February 2013, the complainant made another payment for annual subscriptions based on call centre rates and a promotional offer on TATA Play's website. However, the set-top box message indicated a shorter validity period than expected. The Complainant brought these discrepancies to the attention of TATA Play through an email. While TATA Play acknowledged in his mail they did not revise the end date for the English Movie pack. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-III, West Delhi against the Chief Executive and the Regional Office Manager of TATA Play (hereinafter referred to as TATA Play, collectively). Observations by the Commission: After a thorough analysis, the District Commission held that the case had a lot of disputed facts, particularly concerning small payments being adjusted. Despite the Complainant expressing dissatisfaction with the justifications provided by TATA Play in their reply and pointing out alleged shortcomings since 2010, the District Commission observed that he has continued to use and enjoy the services of TATA Play without interruption. Further, the District Commission held that given the nature of the dispute involving transactions and the Complainant's dissatisfaction with the explanations offered by TATA Play, it was inappropriate for adjudication in summary proceedings under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Instead, it suggested that the matter should be pursued in the Civil Courts where elaborate evidence can be presented and considered for a more comprehensive resolution. Reliance was placed on a few cases such as City Union Bank Ltd. V.R. Chandramohan (2023 SCC Online SC 341), wherein it was held that complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or tortious acts or criminality like fraud, and cheating. Etc. could not be decided by Consumer Commissions under the Consumer Protection Act. Consequently, the District Commission dismissed the complaint and suggested the Complainant to approach a Civil Court of appropriate jurisdiction for redressal of his grievance. Case Title: Rajiv Raizada vs Shri Harit Nagpal, Chief Executive, TATA Play Limited and Anr. Case No.: Complaint Case No. 694/2015 Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant in person Advocate for the Respondent: None Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Consumer Commissions Not Fit For Cases With Disputed Facts, West Delhi Commission Dismisses Complaint Against Tata Play

Smita Singh

Tags