cccccPBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of October 2012
Filed on : 24/08/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
C.C. No. 463/2011
Between
T.F. Mariyan : Complainant
Thenamparambil house, (By Adv. Lalu Mathews M.V.
Thenamparambil Cheeckachan Highcourt of Kerala,
road, Kochi-682 016. Mangattel house, Solida-
rity road, Gandhinagar,
Kochi-682 020.
And
1. Asianet Satellite Communications : Opposite parties
Ltd., Regd. & Corp. Off. 2A, (By Adv. George Cherian
2nd Floor Leela Infopark, Karippaparambil, Karippa-
Technopark, Kazhakuttom, parambil Associates,
Thiruvananthapuram-695 081. H.B. 48,
Rep. by its Regional business Panampilly Nagar,
Head. Kochi-682 036.
2. Asianet Satellite Communications
Ltd., Ernakulam South (AG 01),
No.47, Girinagar 4th Cross road,
Kochi. Rep. by its Manager-682 020.
O R D E R
Paul Gomez, Member.
The following facts are behind the complaint.
Complainant is a subscriber to the opposite party cable service. The subscription was made on annual basis. The channels were provided by analog mode. Opposite parties were bound by the terms of the contract concluded with the complainant to provide service till 30th of September 1911. The cable service was stopped abruptly on 10th July 2011 and was not resumed since then despite the frantic efforts made by the complainant. This complaint is filed to get revival of the cable T.V. connection and other ancillary reliefs.
Opposite parties filed version jointly. The facts of stoppage of transmission to the complainant’s home is not denied. The reason for the same is stated as conversion of analog mode of transmission to digitalized mode. Digitalization of cable transmission is a direction issued of by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India. The conversion to the digital mode is complete except to the premises of the complainant. The complainant has not provided address proof and identity proof which were the pre-requisites to install the set top box, free of charge. Hence it is contended that they are not accountable for the willful omission on the part of the complainant in furnishing the aforesaid documents in spite of repeated requests. That being the true facts, it is urged that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1. Exbts. A1 to A4 were marked for him. Witness of opposite parties was examined as DW1. Exts. B1 and B2 were marked for them. The learned counsel appearing for parties were heard.
4. The following short points fall for determination.
i. Whether stoppage of TV transmission to the house of
complainant was Justified?
ii. What are the reliefs allowable, if any
5. The gist of the complaint is that T.V. connection to this house was abruptly stopped without any notice. There was no justifiable cause for the same because he was entitled to get the service for approximately three more months. On the other hand opposite parties contended that complainant has to accuse himself for the set top box not having been fixed, because complainant refused to furnish the relevant documents. The identification does not assume much significance since complainant is already in the list of their subscribers. Had they been a little more generous, they could have informed him over telephone regarding the requirements, asked him to get those documents ready and collected them after installing the set-top box. This has not happened presumably because of personality clash. Being the provider of service on charges, it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to bend a little.
6. Point No. ii. As we have found that it is the duty of the opposite parties to provide un interrupted channel service, they are answerable for their fault. The opposite parties shall provide the cable TV connection through digital mode after installing the set top box as soon as complainant furnish the address proof and identity proof for the alteration because he was adamant in not furnishing the requisite documents to switch over to digitalized transmission. All other subscribers have fallen in line with the requirement and have their respective connection converted to digitalized mode.
7. To be frank, the dispute look childish because, while the complainant says he was unaware of the latest developments, the opposite parties contend that it was a deliberate omission on the part of the complainant in furnishing the identity proof.
8. Therefore the dispute boils down to furnishing of identify proof. Essentially this complaint, in our mind stems out of d\ego clash.
9. We do not think that the matter is beyond settlement if both parties came down a little. The complainant has signaled a good gesture when he deposed in the box that he is ready to furnish the documents pertaining to identity. It is noticeable that the connection was disrupted during the currency of subscription period. The agony and pain is quite perceptible in the given circumstances. Moreover he along with his aged mother were deprived of the enjoyment of watching the television channels for a longtime for which opposite parties are bound to compensate. Also complainant is entitled for costs.
10. Accordingly the complaint stands allowed as follows:
i. Opposite parties shall furnish digitalized cable T.V. service to the complainant as soon as complainant furnishes the requisite identity proof. It is made clear that complainant shall furnish it in opposite parties office.
ii. Opposite parties shall furnish the aforesaid cable connection
service free of cost for two years from the date of revival of
connection as per this order, in lieu of monetary
compensation for mental agony.
iii. Opposite parties shall pay Rs. 1,000/- towards costs of
litigation.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of October 2012.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : For customer copy dt 25/03/2009
A2 : Copy of provisional receipt
A3 : Copy of bill dt. 26/09/2009
A4 : Copy of bill dt. 26/09/2010
A5 : Copy of letter dt. 16/02/2011
A6 : Copy of postal receipt
A7 : “ “
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of letter
B2 : Copy of final views
Depositions:
PW1 : T.F. Mariyan
