IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH : PRESIDENT F.A. No. 681 of 2023 [(Against the order passed in C.C. No.13 of 2019 dated 03.11.2022 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Vellore)].

Friday, the 28^th day of March 2025

1. The Managing Director Tata Play Limited [formerly TATA Sky Limited]

No.301 CST Road Kalina, Santa Cruz East Mumbai – 400 098.

2. The Nodal Officer Tata Play Limited [formerly TATA Sky Limited]

1st Floor, Symtec, F-5 Third Phase, Ekkaduthangal Chennai – 600 032. .. Appellants/

Opposite Parties - Vs –

V. Shanmugam S/o. Late K. Varadaraj Mudaliar No.3/40, Farm House Veppangeri Village K.V. Kuppam- 632 201.

Vellore District. .. Respondent/

Complainant Counsel for Appellants/

Opposite Parties : M/s. Arun Karthik Mohan For the Respondent/Complainant : Party – in - person This appeal came up for final hearing on 23.09.2024, and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellants and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties as against the order dated 03.11.2022 passed in C.C. No.13 of 2019, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vellore, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent herein, in part.

2. The appellants are the opposite parties and the respondent is the complainant before the District Commission. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred as per their ranking before the District Commission.

3. The case of the complainant is that he availed Tata Sky DTH services at the rate of Rs.169/- per month for Tamil Pack and paid Rs.510/- during the 2^nd week of January 2019 to the local agent at Chennai. The complainant is the customer of the opposite parties for more than 3 years. On 24-02-2019 onwards, the DTH services of the complainant were abruptly discontinued without any prior notice, despite the fact that the complainant had paid the subscription charges up to March 2019. In this regard, the complainant lodged a complaint through email on 24-02-2019, upon which a reply was received through email stating that a representative of the opposite party would contact the complainant telephonically. Since no one contacted over phone, the complainant again sent an email on 25-02-2019, enclosing a photocopy of the list of programs. Although the request was acknowledged and certain guidelines were issued to enable the complainant to obtain the required channels, no programs were made available till 27-02-2019. The complainant once again sent a reminder email stating that even free channels are not available. In reply, the opposite party directed the complainant to visit the nearest authorized dealer or tatasky.com with the request for change of pack. Finally, the complainant sent a complaint on 03-03-2019 stating that if the entire Tamil channels are not restored, he would move the Consumer Court. The said Tamil pack includes Jaya TV without any extra payment but according to the opposite parties Jaya TV is not in their channel list. Hence, the issue remained unresolved. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost.

4. Resisting the case of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has filed a written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had acted upon only in furtherance of the mandate provided by the Regulatory Body, i.e., the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India, (TRAI). For proper consideration of the issue, it is relevant to extract the following TRAI Regulations, which have come into force from 02.03.2019:-

1. Telecommunication, (B&CS), (Eighth), (Addr