This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Hira Bhattacharyya. The case of the complainant’s in short is that O.P. No.1 is a proprietorship firm, providing cable connection and internet services and complainant is a regular customer of the O.P. No.1. The complainant regularly paying bills for cable connection and enjoying the service.
On 21.6.2017 the complainant paid upto three months bills i.e. July, August, and September, 2017 for cable connection and obtained money receipt being No.169190 dated 21.6.2017 but from 1.7.2017 the opposite party stopped broadcasting one regular channel i.e. History T.V. 18 channel without any prior notice to the complainant.
The complainant informed the matter to the opposite party No.2 but he did not pay any heed to solve the matter. On 2.7.2017 the complainant personally went to the office of opposite party and asked to one employee of the O.P. No.1 that why History T.V. 18 channel has not been broadcasting and requested to provide the channel list. In reply the employee of the O.P. No.1 behaved rudely and threatened him by dire consequences.
On 13.7.2017 the complainant through email asked the O.P. No.1 what is the reason behind blocking the History TV Channel but O.P. No.1 did not make any reply. Thereafter the complainant sent a letter to the O.P. No.1. The OP No.1 gave reply but same was irrelevant one. On 14.12.2017 the complainant lodged a complaint before the Asst. Director, CA & FBP, Hooghly R.O. against the O.Ps. In that case the O.P. is advised and/or suggested to solve the issues as early as possible and to maintain good behaviour. But opposite party did not pay any heed to solve the matter. Despite of repeated requests made by the complainant to the O.P. to provide good service as per settlement but till date the Ops have failed to comply such request.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before this forum for relief with a prayer to direct the O.Ps. to provide the History TV 18 Channel, to refund of Rs.740/- as advance payment, to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- towards litigation costs.
Despite receiving notice the opposite party did not file written version so the proceeding run ex-parte against them.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he assailed that he is the consumer of the OP and paying bills regularly for cable connection and enjoying the service. Inspite of paying bills for the period of 3 months i.e. July 2017 to September,2017 the OP No.1 stopped the service of broadcasting one regular channel History T.V.18 without any prior notice to the complainant. He informed the matter to the OP No.2 but the said OP took no measure to solve the problem. Getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this Forum praying directions upon the OP as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
After perusing the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit and hearing the ex parte argument this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant used to pay the bills raised by the cable operator and availing of services. It appears from the written argument of the complainant that the OP stopped the service of History T.V.18 from 01.7.2017. He enquired the OP no.1 regarding the stop of service of the impugned T.V.18 channel but the OP No.1 behaved rudely. Despite receiving the complaint from the complainant the opposite party failed to restore the broadcasting of the T.V. channel History T.V.18. E- mail dated 30.6.2017 sent by the complainant to electronics point specifically stated that the complainant requested the OP earnestly to restore the broadcasting but they avoided the request of the complainant. Thereafter the letter dated 30.10.2016 of the Electronics point clearly speaks that ‘if any service block or unavailable from MSO (Hathway) and you already pay for the channel. We are refund the channel value normally. You have also choose another channel of same value. Choose option always depend on you.’ The order of the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Hooghly RO dated 10.1.2017 speaks that both parties appeared at the hearing and the OPs view is that after getting complaint they contracted the MSO and successfully solved the problem. In case of History TV 18 they refunded the amount as per norms. And in case of Zee Bangla they able to deliver the uninterrupted service. The complainants view is that the dispute has been redressed and he is getting uninterrupted service of disputed two channels. But the complainant alleged regarding the misbehavior of the representative of the opposite party. So the dispute has been settled before the Regional Office, Hooghly of CA & FBP. Thereafter the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying direction upon the OP.
So after going through the above discussion this Forum is in the opinion that the opposite party tried to solve the problem and refunded the amount as per the norms & provided the service normal. But the complainant after getting proper service and broadcasting of History Channel T.V.18 filed the instant complaint on the same pretext. As such the complaint petition regarding the deficiency of service of the opposite party is not tenable in law & fact. So the complaint petition is liable to be rejected.
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case and the opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation & other reliefs as prayed in the complaint petition.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the compliant case No. 175/2017 be and the same is dismissed on ex parte without cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
