Sri. K. GOPALAN: PRESIDENT<br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs13420/- as compensation.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief are as follows The complainant had been enjoying his TV upto 2002 with the aid of antenna and dish antenna. The Proprietor, Digital Vision Cable TV Centre , Mangattidam approached the complainant and persuaded him to avail cable connection for only Rs 100/- service charge on condition that the complainant’s antenna and dish antenna with booster will be taken by him considering as security deposit. On his compulsion complainant agreed to take connection but the opposite party did not issue any receipt for the equipments taken from the comlplainant. Upto 2005 connection was continued on this agreed condition though there was some complaint regarding the clarity. On the end of April 2005 the owner approached him again and told that he has renovated system so as to make available more than 30 channels with full clarity and requested to cooperate and for also an increase of service charge to Rs 130/-. Complainant agreed to pay the increase d Rs 30/- as service charge plus regular assured payment if there is assurance that the said channels will be available regularly with clarity. Complainant paid the said amount upto 7.7.2005 regularly But there was no clarity for picture and 30 channels were not available as promised. Thereafter complainant paid only Rs 100/- , the earlier charge . But the opposite party approached the complainant again and promised to arrange prompt service as agreed. Thereafter complainant paid Rs 130/- again. But the opposite party did not give his service as assured and the picture became so poor even cannot be viewed at all. This was informed to the collection agent as well as the opposite party but in vain. Though repeatedly contacted both directly and over telephone there was no use.When the complainant told the opposite party that he will complaint before the Forum he abused the complainant and the Forum.His demand is to pay Rs 330/- which the complainant kept not paying the increased Rs 30/- Opposite party threatened the complainant that he will loose the connection and deposit. This deficiency of service on the part of opposite party created much loss and suffered insult. Hence this complaint.<br /> After receiving the complaint Forum sent notice and thereby the opposite party appeared and filed version. Thereafter the complainant become absent and complaint happened to be dismissed for default. On application complaint was restored and again notice was sent to the opposite party. Notice served properly and acknowledgement returned but opposite party remained absent without being appeared before the Forum. Since the notice was properly served the matter was proceeded and complainant was allowed to adduce evidence.<br /> Opposite party filed version and contended as follows. It is absolutely false that the complainant had been watching television from his house with the aid of antenna and dishantena. The opposite party never approached the complainant. The opposite party has been providing cable connection since 2000 under the name and style of Digital Vision Cable TV Centre. The house of the complainant is about 500 metres from the control room of the opposite party. He was having customers only upto a distance of 400 metres. The complainant approached the opposite party and asked for cable connection. The opposite party informed the complainant that it was not possible But fed up with nuisance caused by the frequent visit provided him cable connection. Not even a single paise was paid by the complainant. When asked to pay Rs 1000/- as security deposit complainant requested permission for payment due to financial stringency and not paid the amount at all. At the time of giving connection the complainant was not having antenna, booster or dish antenna and there was only a television set in his house The complainant’s allegation that opposite party had taken antenna, dish antenna and booster worth Rs 10000/- from the complainant in lieu of security deposit and that he had not given any receipt are lie. The allegation that the channels were not clear is false. The complainant had been watching the channels with full clarity right from the date of connection.Initially 16 channels were provided for a subscription of Rs 100/- and subsequently with an increase of Rs 30 subscription channels were increased to 34. Complainant did not pay the additional charge of Rs 30/- from the begining itself. The balance amount due on October, 2006 was Rs 330/-. The allegation that the complainant had informed regarding lack of clarity is false. It is only an attempt to evade the payment of dues and security amount. The allegation that opposite party had abused consumer Forum is only an attempt to create bad impression about this opposite party. So also threatening that the connection would be disconnected is false.. Complainant has not deposited the security then the question of forfeiture does not arise. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and complainant has not sustained any loss or damage . Opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief and cost.<br /> The evidence consists of oral evidence of complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4.<br /> ISSUES 1 to 3.<br /> Admittedly the complainant availed cable connection from the opposite party. Complainant adduced evidence that he was having T.V. set from 1986. Ext. A3 user details proves that complainant purchased T.V. on 31.7.1986. This shows that complainant had been using the TV set from 1986 onwards. It is also evident that the complainant had used dish antenna from 23.3.95. Ext. A1 is the bill issued by Variety Enterprises & Electrical, Kuthuparamba in the name of the complainant Padmanabhan, Mangattidam which shows the complainant had purchased Dish Antenna , Receiver, Booster and fitting for Rs 10,000/-. Opposite party started his cable TV net work in the year 2000. Complainant availed cable connection from the opposite party in the year 2002. Thus it is evident that the complainant had used to view TV much before the opposite party started the cable net work. Thus it can also be assumed that atleast the complainant should have antenna right from beginning. Ext. A1 shows that he had been started using dish antenna from 1995. Thus the case of the complainant that he had been viewing his TV upto 2002 with the aid of dish antenna can be believed. Complainant’s further case is that at the time of giving cable connection the antenna and dish antenna were taken by the opposite party as security deposit. Opposite party contended that at the time of giving connection the complainant was not having antenna, booster or dish antenna and there was only a television set in his house. Opposite party has also denied the allegation that he had taken the antenna , dish antenna and booster etc from the complainant, <br /> It can be seen from the version of opposite party that so much of preference is given to complainant consumer even though the connection was given because of nuisance and frequent request of the complainant. First of all the connection to complainant was a special one and the only connection beyond 400 metres from the centre. Even the price of materials required for the extra 100 metreswere not charged from the complainant. Moreover , complainant was asked to pay Rs 1000/- as security amount. Opposite party states that complainant did not pay this amount, telling that he had financial stringency. But connection was given without any payment. Connection was given really to avoid nuisance but it is difficult to understand what prompted the opposite party to suffer this much of financial loss to provide connection to such a person who was considered to be a nuisance. In the light of the available evidence it can only be assumed that the opposite party was very much interested to give connection to complainant so as to obtain dish antenna. Dish antenna can be utilized for the use of cable net work.<br /> PW1 complainant deposed thus”<br /> <br /> <br /> “ In the light of the dealings of opposite party as discussed above, what is deposed by complainant seems to be correct. Nothing else is seen to induce opposite party to give connection to complainant suffering difficulties and financial loss. The complainant can be believed in this aspect and Ext. A1 prove the price of Dish Antenna, Receiver, Booster etc as Rs 10,000/-.<br /> Ext,. A2 proves that the complainant paid subscription upto October 2006 and collection agent of opposite party had signed the card on receiving the amount. Subscription card shows payment Rs 120/- on 5.5.05, Rs 130 /-each on 6th and 7th month and thereafter Rs 100 /-each utpo January and then again Rs 130/- on February, Rs 100/- on March, Rs 130/- on April, Rs 100/- on May, Rs 150/- each for June and July Rs 130/- each for August and September and Rs 100/- on October. The balance to be paid is recorded only Rs 330/-on October. Complainant was not getting channel from October onwards. It was disconnected on October 2006. But the opposite party while disconnecting the cable did not pay back the security amount which was accounted at the time of giving connection. The disconnection of cable and non payment of security amount that was accounted out of transfer of dish antenna, booster etc amounts to deficiency of service. The evidence available makes it clear that the opposite party has not taken any interest to solve the grievances of the complainant instead disconnected the cable. Complainant was a consumer since 2002. The balance amount even according to opposite party is only Rs 330/-. Continuous payment also recorded. The complainant deposed that he did not pay the increased subscription on protest of non availability of promised number of channels. Intermittent full payment has been shown in the subscription card. Hence there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant that the non payment of increased full amount in certain month is due to non availability of assured number of channels and clear picture. Sincere attempt on the part of opposite party has not been seen to solve the deficiency of service in transmission, the opposite party is liable to refund the price of dish antenna. Hence we are of opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite party. The opposite party is liable to pay the complainant Rs 10,000/- together with Rs 1000/- as cost of this proceedings.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs 10,000/-( Rupees ten thousand only) together with Rs 1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> APPENDIX <br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Bill dt. 23.3.95 issued by Variety Enterprises & Electricals,Kuthuparamba.<br /> A2. Card issued by the opposite party<br /> A3. Operating instructions of BPL TV<br /> A4. Bill issued by Kanari & Sons, Kuthuparamba.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – NIL<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT<br /> <br /> <br />