R.Vijayakumar, Member
The complaint is filed for getting compensation Rs.1, 00,000/- and for redressal of the damages sustained by the complainant.
The complainant’s case is that the cable TV service availed by the complainant was disconnected without any prior intimation to him.
(2)
The complainant had obtained Cable TV connection from Harsha vision in the year 2003. Subsequently the network was sold and the ownership was changed to Sat Vision which was owned by the opposite party. The new management increased subscription charges without giving intimation to the subscribers. The complainant objected the increase. But in the absence of the complainant, the opposite party collected the increased amount from the complainant’s wife for the subsequent three months. In the month of May when the agent of opposite party came to collect the charges, the complainant told about his reservation for the increased amount. He had contacted to the opposite party through telephone and informed him that he is a user of TATA SKY DTH System and retaining the Cable TV network as his status symbols only. The complainant told him that he can disconnect the Cable TV after refunding the deposit amount Rs.1000/-. After two days the cable network was disconnected without any notice. Until then the complainant was paying subscription charges regarding without any dues. As per regulations the opposite party hold right to disconnect the network in the case of default of payment for two months continuously. The complainant sent three letters to the opposite party. The opposite party sent reply for the first notice. But reply was not satisfactory. No reply was sent by the opposite party for the registered notice sent by the complainant.
The intentional act done by the opposite party is to defame the complainant and to tarnish his reputation and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays for redressal and for getting compensation.
Even though sufficient opportunity has been given, the opposite party remained absent. The Forum imposed cost Rs.250/-. Even then the opposite party remained absent and failed to pay costs. Hence set exparte.
(3)
As the opposite party remained absent we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant.
The complainant filed affidavit. He was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 and P2 series marked.
The points that would arise for consideration are :
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
- Compensation and cost.
Points (1) and (2)
We have perused the complaint, affidavit and documents adduced in evidence by the complainant.
Ext.P1 is the show cause notice dated 29th June 2011 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.P2 series includes is the notices dated 10/07/2011 and 11/09/2011.
On perusal of the documents we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. The points found accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to refund deposit amount Rs.1000/- and to pay compensation Rs.2000/- along with cost Rs.500/-.
(4)
The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.
Dated this the 28th day of February 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari :Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
List of documents
P1 - Copies of letter written to Mr.Salim and reply received
P2 - Copy of conditions and instructions written in service provider’s
collection book
