- Joined
- 3 Nov 2010
- Messages
- 31,700
- Solutions
- 3
- Reaction score
- 53,492
CHENNAI: A consumer court here has directed Sun Direct DTH to pay 21,500 to a subscriber who filed a complaint saying he was not provided the promised high definition (HD) channels. Saying there was deficiency in service on the part of the company, the forum asked it to pay a compensation of 10,000, another 5,000 as case cost and the claim amount of 6,500.
V Arunachalam of Maraimalai Nagar bought a Sun Direct DTH's HD connection on March 19, 2010 by paying 9,900. "Sun Direct, through a newspaper advertisement, had promised seven HD channels and said more HD channels will be added shortly. But it provided only five HD channels and no more HD channels were added later," said the 60-year-old in his complaint to the Chennai district consumer disputes redressal forum.
Arunachalam said telecast of HD and other channels was affected in the second week of July 2010 due to satellite-related problems. He also said that the number of HD channels was then reduced to two. "Even after repeated complaints, they were not ready to restore the channels. The firm had failed to provide the promised HD channels even after collecting 9,990 that included advance for a year's HD subscription. It is a clear case of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice," he said.
In its response, Sun Direct said seven HD channels were provided to all subscribers till August 2010, but there were some problems with INSAT 4B satellite and transponders could not be operated.
"The services were restored at the earliest and at the time of re-alignment we were compelled to remove two HD channels due to capacity constraint and then provided eight HD channels from January 2011. On receipt of legal notice of the complainant, the company sent executives to the complainant's place, but they were not allowed to correct the problems," it said.
However, convinced that there indeed was deficiency in service and failure to perform an agreed duty on the part of the company, a bench comprising forum president V Gopal and member L Deenadayalan awarded the compensation and cost to Arunachalam.
DTH provider goes back on promise, told to pay up - Times Of India
V Arunachalam of Maraimalai Nagar bought a Sun Direct DTH's HD connection on March 19, 2010 by paying 9,900. "Sun Direct, through a newspaper advertisement, had promised seven HD channels and said more HD channels will be added shortly. But it provided only five HD channels and no more HD channels were added later," said the 60-year-old in his complaint to the Chennai district consumer disputes redressal forum.
Arunachalam said telecast of HD and other channels was affected in the second week of July 2010 due to satellite-related problems. He also said that the number of HD channels was then reduced to two. "Even after repeated complaints, they were not ready to restore the channels. The firm had failed to provide the promised HD channels even after collecting 9,990 that included advance for a year's HD subscription. It is a clear case of deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice," he said.
In its response, Sun Direct said seven HD channels were provided to all subscribers till August 2010, but there were some problems with INSAT 4B satellite and transponders could not be operated.
"The services were restored at the earliest and at the time of re-alignment we were compelled to remove two HD channels due to capacity constraint and then provided eight HD channels from January 2011. On receipt of legal notice of the complainant, the company sent executives to the complainant's place, but they were not allowed to correct the problems," it said.
However, convinced that there indeed was deficiency in service and failure to perform an agreed duty on the part of the company, a bench comprising forum president V Gopal and member L Deenadayalan awarded the compensation and cost to Arunachalam.
DTH provider goes back on promise, told to pay up - Times Of India
