DATE OF FILING                    :     19-03-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      09-04-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     09-09-2014.

Sushovan Acharjee,

North Bakshara, Palpara, P.O. Bakshara,

Howrah – 711110,

( near Anukul Thakur Ashram ) P.S. Santragachi,

 District –Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Chandu  Chandra  Ghosh,

            Proprietor, Ghosh Cable Network,

            North Bakshara Palpara, P.O. Bakshara,

            Howrah – 711110.

            ( near Anukul  Thakur Ashram ), P.S. Santragachi. 

2.         Soumen Ghsoh, Proprietor,

            Abhinandan  Cable Network &

            Internet Service. ---------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Sushovan Acharjee,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the excess amount received on account of supply of set top box being Rs. 101/- along with interest as well as the excess amount of monthly subscription received since Nov’04, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with litigation charge, to reconnect the  cable T.V. line in question.

2.                   The brief facts of the case is that complainant is a subscriber of SITI  Cable

T.V. Net  Work since 2011 under the local cable operator being o.p. no. 1 and subsequently o.p. no. 2. And since then complainant paid monthly subscription of Rs. 165/- for which o.ps. never provided any bill except a subscription card. It is alleged by the complainant that during the same period o.ps. used to charge  Rs. 150/- per month even, from many subscriber. But even after repeated requests made by the complainant, o.p. went on charging Rs. 165/- instead of Rs. 150/-. Subsequently complainant made several requests to o.p. to refund Rs. 15/- per month from November, 2004 to November, 2012 vide Annexure C. Further it is alleged that although  SITI Cable used to advertise the cost of their set top box ( STB ) was Rs. 779/-, o.p. no. 2 took Rs. 900/- for the supply of said set top box on 03-02-2013 which means o.p. no. 2 received an excess amount of Rs. 121/-  which complainant mistakenly wrote  as Rs. 101/ ( Annexure B). Even o.p. no. 2 did not supply any bill / money receipt and warranty card for that newly purchased STB. And after supply of STB, o.p. no. 2 started charging Rs. 212/- for popular package from July, 2014 without providing any bill for that. So the complainant became unwilling to pay the monthly subscription. Accordingly on 03-03-2014 o.p. no. 2 disconnected the cable line of the complainant. And in spite of repeated requests the o.p. no. 3 did not reconnect the same. Ultimately, the complainant sent a letter with the same request but o.p. no. 2  received the letter. So being frustrated and finding no other alternative the complainant filed this instant petition with the aforesaid prayer.     

3.               Notices were served. They   appeared and filed  written version. Accordingly, case was heard on contest.

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through written version filed by the o.ps. and noted its contents. All through their written version, o.ps. have denied all the allegations of the complainant but has not make any specific submission except in para no. 4 of the written version. It is stated by them that charging of monthly subscription always varies in conformity of the number of channels provided by LCO ( local cable operator herein o.p. nos. 1 & 2 ). O.ps. always charged monthly subscription from the complainant in conformity with the number of channels provided to him and no excess amount was charged from the complainant. And the cost of STB being Rs. 900/- includes the carrying charges and other expenses of the same and which has to be greater than Rs. 779/-, if it is at all declared by the SITI  Cable. The Supply of  bill does not arise as the complainant stopped paying monthly subscription since July, 2013 and due to nonpayment, complainant’s cable line was disconnected. Complainant filed reply against the written version of o.ps. and stated that the o.ps. have even supplied the warranty card, bill or money receipt of the STB supplied by o.p. no. 2. Here we take a pause. If the STB supplied by o.p. no. 2 was a new one, it should have accompanied with bill/money receipt and warranty card. But o.p. no. 2   did not do that. The o.p. no. 2 also did not supply the subscriber’s application form (SAF ) and channel application form ( CAF ) to the complainant but annexed one document to show that the complainant opted for popular package which is duly signed by the complainant on 28-8-2013 which is not at all an authenticated form of SITI Cable. Being a service provider, o.ps. should have been far more careful about all these formalities. Complainant repeatedly asked for bill/ warranty card of the STB but o.ps. failed to do that which nothing but a gross negligence  on the part of the o.ps. With regard to charging of different amounts from the different customers since November, 2004, it is our common knowledge that it was entire the discretion of the LCO ( local cable operator ) before introduction of STB. But since the introduction of STB, LCOs are strictly directed to supply the subscriber’s application form (SAF ) and channel application form ( CAF ) to the complainant to put forward their choice of channels for which the subscribers are supposed to pay monthly subscription. But here in this case complainant  was kept in dark and he was not given the opportunity of right to choose.  In a word, he was simply dictated by the o.ps. to pay Rs. 212/- per month against which complainant stood. We, as the common people of the society, are also the sufferers of the same situation. It is utterly an unfair trade practice adopted by the local cable operators who are the agents of big operators like SITI Cable etc. Accordingly we find o.ps. are deficient in providing service to the complainant.     Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 149  of 2014 ( HDF 149 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to reconnect the cable line of the complainant  and to supply the bill/ money receipt and warranty card of the STB having no. 1208C9930490040329 within  15 days hereof  to the complainant i.d., Rs. 50/- per day shall be imposed upon the o.ps. till actual reconnection and supply of the bill and warranty card.

       That the o.ps.  are further  directed to pay Rs. 5,000/-  to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs within one month from this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till actual payment.

      That the o.ps. are further directed to receive monthly subscription from the complainant on supply of bill from the current month.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.