IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Thursday the 25^thday of April, 2019.

Filed on 05-06-2018

Present

1. Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)

2) Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi,BA,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.142/2018

between

Complainant:-                                                                                       Opposite parties:-

Sri.V.Alex Joseph                                                                              Asianet Digital Network Pvt.Ltd

S/o V.Joseph Kurian                                                                          Mullackal,

Vallavanthara,                                                                                    Alappuzha

Thathampally P.O.

Alappuzha

(By Adv.K.Rajan)

                                                                                    O R D E R

                                      SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)

This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2. The averments in the complaint in short, are as follows:-

The opposite party is a company providing cable T.V network service to the complainant. The customer ID of the complainant is EA 92002890. The complainant availed the service of the opposite party cable T.V. network connection few years ago and while so during the first week of April 2018, the cable T.V. services provided to the complainant became defective. The complainant intimated the matter to the opposite party who deputed technicians and on examination of the cable T.V. network by the technician reported that the S.T. box installed at the premises of the complainant was defective. Accordingly the said box was replaced on 9^th April 2018. But even after the replacement of the old set top box with a new one expending a sum of Rs. 1500/- the complaint persisted and on further examination by the persons from the opposite party, it was found that the complaint was not due to the fault of the ST box instead it was due to the complaint in the cable T.V line drawn by the opposite party and as such the said complaint was rectified and connection of the cable T.V was restored to the complainant. It is initially the original complaint of no picture was made by the complainant was got registered on 07.04.2018 and on the very next day itself, the same was closed stating that ST box not subscribed to service contract and on the next day new ST box (Set top box) was purchased from the opposite party after retaining the old ST box and also received Rs.1500/- from the complainant. Again the complainant got registered another complaint on the 9^th day of April 2018 with ticket no. EA 0051176. And it was only on the 10^th of April, the complaint of no picture was resolved by curing the cable line. In fact the complainant was that of the cable and not that of the box as initially found by the opposite party and the ST box was unnecessarily replaced and realized a sum of Rs.1500/-, without any reason whatsoever. In the above circumstances the opposite party is liable to refund the amount of Rs.1,500/- realized from the complainant and further liable to compensate the complainant for the delay of four days for restoring the cable connection repairing the cable line. The conduct and attitude of the opposite party is clear case of deficiency in service besides unlawful and illegal trade practice for which the opposite party is legally liable. The opposite party has unlawful and forcefully realized the amount of Rs.1500/- for the replacement of the ST box which is expected to be supplied to the complainant free of cost. In the above circumstances the opposite party was informed by way of registered notice that unless it return the sum of Rs. 1500/- which was received unnecessarily and also pay another Rs.5000/- being the damages/ compensation for the deficiency of services, together with the notice charge of Rs.500/- to the complainant within 7 days from the date of receipt of this notice, the complainant would be constrained to resort to legal action to redress his grievance at the risk and cost of the opposite party. Though the opposite party accepted the notice, not cared to redress the grievance of the complainant and hence this complaint.

3. Though notice was served, the opposite party called absent. Hence the forum decided to proceed with the complaint in the absence of the opposite party and posted the case for recording evidence.

4. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination by re-iterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 documents. Ext.A1 is the copy of the advocate notice issued on behalf of the complainant alleging deficiency in service and demanding to repay Rs.1,500 + 1,000 as compensation to the complainant. Ext.A2 is the postal receipt evidencing the issuance of the Advocate notice. Ext.A3 is the track consignment issued by postal authorities in respect of the lawyer notice issued by the complainant on 28-04-2018. It is clear from Ext.A3 that the postal authorities have delivered the lawyer notice on 01-05-2018 to the opposite party. Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by the Asianet Digital Network Pvt.Ltd. Alappuzha (opposite party) acknowledging the receipt of Rs.1,500/- towards set top box replacement. The above receipt is dated 09-04-2018 which would prove the case of the complainant to the effect that opposite party has replaced the set top box. The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 document would establish the case of the complainant. The complainant has proved clear case of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get the value of ST box returned compensation and cost of the proceedings.

In the result the complaint stands allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,500/- being the cost of the ST box Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party to the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.6,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization with cost Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 25^th day of April, 2019.

                                                                                 Sd/-Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)

                                                                                           Sd/-Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi (Member)

Appendix:-

Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1 - Copy of advocate notice

Ext.A2 - Postal receipt

Ext.A3 - Track consignment

Ext.A4 - Cash receipt dtd 09-04-2018

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

                                                                                // True Copy //

To

Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                                               By Order

                                                                                                                                          Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Sa/-

Compared by:-