CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member

                                                                                                                                    Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.208/10

 

Saturday the 30^th day of April, 2011

 

Petitioner                                              : Prof: Damodara Kaimal

                                                             Palathunkal House,

                                                             Chemmanampadi ,

                                                             Gandhinagar PO, Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv.P.Rajesh)

                          

                                                        Vs.

 

Opposite party                                     :1) Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.

2)      Represented by Manager

Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.,

First Floor, Excel Tower,

Star Junction, Kottayam.

3)      Padma Raveendran

Ekatha Vision,

Franchise,

Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd.,                         First Floor, Excel Tower,

Star Junction, Kottayam

(Adv. Francis Thomas)     

 

 

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows.

 

            The complainant is a retired professor of Sanskrit and he is aged 70 years. The petitioner who is suffering from Diabetics, Arthraitis, Astma, Blood Pressure and Cholestrol spends his time by watching Asianet news channel than other channels. The petitioner took Asianet cable connection through a local channel distribution agency but transmission was not good and he opted to ‘sun direct’. All of a sudden Asianet news channel was made a pay channel and sun direct excluded Asianet news channel from its transmission and therefore the petitioner disconnected ‘sun direct’. So the petitioner approached Asianet Satellite Communication Office at Excel tower Star Junction, Kottayam for cable connection on 23-07-10 and on 24-07-10, cable connection was given to the petitioner. Immediately after connection, the TV was put on and the picture was not clear because of grains. The petitioner was made to believe that the transmission will be clear by connecting a Digital set box and the petitioner paid Rs.2,120/- for cable connection and Rs.160/- for the digital set box on 24-07-10 while receiving the amount the petitioner was told that on 25-07-10, the set up box will be connected. The petitioner who had a bad health condition telephoned at the opposite party’s office from 26^th July till 9^th August for the digital box connection. But there was no favourable response from the opposite party’s side and that caused mental agony to the petitioner. Hence the complainant filed this complaint praying for the installation of Digital set box along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost Rs.3,000/-.

            The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version together with the following main contentions

i)                    On 24/07/10, the opposite parties had installed cable connection in the residence of the petitioner. From that day itself he is getting all the channels. It is not correct to say that the picture was not clear because of grains. The TV owned by the petitioner is an old one having poor picture clarity

ii)                   As the employee of the opposite party suggested to install digital set up box, the petitioner had paid Rs.160/- but the opposite party had not told to the petitioner that the set up box will be installed on 25-07-10 itself.

iii)                 As the petitioner is the first person availing digital connection in his locality, we had made much wiring and technical arrangements for providing the same. Due to the above said reasons, it took about 20 days time for providing digital connection to the petitioner.

iv)                 The petitioner never telephoned to the opposite party’s office raising complaints. No complaint was registered in the opposite party’s office with regard to the connection. As all the channels are available to the petitioner from 24-07-10 itself, no mental agony or disturbance was caused to the petitioner.

v)                  On the date of receipt of notice itself, even though one of our employees reached his residence and checked the alleged complaint, the complainant did not allow him to enter his house. After appearing in this case on

30-07-10, the opposite party obtained permission from this forum and checked the alleged complaint on 31-07-10 itself. The alleged grains in the T.V were due to the changes in the tuning of the channel. It was caused due to the ignorance of the complainant in using remote control of the T.V and has no connection with the cable connection provided by us. One executive corrected the same using the remote of the T.V.

vi)                 Even though the said things were happened due to the fault of the complainant, the opposite parties are ready to extend the period of subscription for one more month from the date of expiry.

The opposite parties contented that there is no deficiency in service on their part and no mental agony is caused to the petitioner. Hence they prayed to dismiss the petition with costs to them.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties and exhibits A1 to A5.

            Heard the counsel for both the opposite parties and perused the documents. The complainant produced the original booking and installation for ACS and it is marked as exhibit A2. From exhibit A2, it is clear that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 2280/- for Asianet connection and set up box on 24-07-10. The petitioner averred that he paid for the digital set up box allured by the promises of opposite party regarding the clarity of transmission. The petitioner further averred that even though the opposite party promised to connect the digital set up box on 25-07-10, they haven’t done nothing. The petitioner next averred that he complained to the opposite parties through phone but all those complaints were in vain and therefore he issued an advocate’s notice dtd 10-08-10. Evidencing the issuance of the said advocate’s notice, the complainant produced the office copy of the advocate’s notice and A/d card and they are marked as Exts.A3&A4 respectively.

            The counsel for the opposite party argued that the alleged grains in the TV were due to the ignorance of the complainant in using the remote control of the TV and that the TV owned by the complainant is an old one having poor picture clarity. The learned counsel submitted that on receiving the advocate’s notice they reached the petitioner’s house to rectify the complaints raised by the petitioner but he had not permitted them to enter his house. Whereas the counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party failed to issue a reply notice to him.

            The opposite party’s counsel further submitted that much wiring and technical arrangements were necessary to provide the digital connection and therefore it took about 20 days for providing the same. The petitioner countered that the opposite party had to connect only a 3 feet length cable from the television to the set up box and therefore their claim regarding strenuous work for 20 days was needed for the said connection is entirely false.

            Nothing is placed on record to prove that such a heavy natured wiring and technical arrangements were necessary for giving a set up box connection. Moreover

nothing is placed on record to substantiate the delay of 20 days caused in giving the set up box connection. From the documents placed on record it is clear that the opposite parties accepted money for the said box on 24/07/10 but failed to give the said connection until an order was passed from the forum. In our view not providing the promised facility to the customer in time without any valid reason is a clear case of deficiency in service. In our opinion what had happened would have definitely caused mental agony, inconvenience and disappointment to the complainant. Point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 the complaint is allowed.

            The opposite parties will pay Rs. 2500/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of the order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-

 

Ext.A1-Medical certificate

Ext.A2-Booking receipt

Ext.A3-Copy of advocate’s notice

Ext.A4-Original A/d card

Ext.A5-Adtv Booking cum Installation report

 

By Order,