By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The say of the complainant is that he availed service of opposite party for cable television connection by paying initial deposit of Rs.2,000/-. Monthly rent of Rs.135/- was regularly paid. The cable transmission was defective and the clarity of channels were very poor. Although complainant brought this grievance to the notice of opposite party, he did nothing to solve the problem. Complainant had mentioned about the defective service to some of his friends who carried the say to the ears of opposite party. It is alleged that the relationship between complainant and opposite party thus became strained. On 24-7-07 opposite party came to the house of complainant and forcefully disconnected the cable service, and informed the onlooking neighbours that the connection is being severed due to non-payment of rent. Due to the disconnection complainant was not able to see the swearing in ceremony of President of India. Even though complainant approached opposite party and requested to restore connection, opposite party refused saying that opposite party is not willing to provide connection for those who criticize him. Complainant thereafter send a registered letter to opposite party requesting to restore the connection. Opposite party neither did reply nor restore the connection. Hence the complaint praying for restoration of connection and compensation of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Version was filed by opposite party admitting that complainant is a consumer for supply of cable service under opposite party, but denies collection of any amount as deposit. That cable transmission was proper and clear. The allegation that since complainant told his friends about defective transmission opposite party developed animosity and forcefully disconnected the service is specifically denied. It is stated that complainant had entrusted opposite party to telecast an advertisement of 'Arabian Jwellery' which was owned by complainant. After the telecast of advertisement complainant informed opposite party that he is dissatisfied with the televising of the advertisement and complained that it did not help to promote his business. Complainant attributed responsibility upon opposite party and that this resulted in strained relationship between them. Complainant informed opposite party that he does not want the connection any more and that he will not pay rent further. The service was disconnected by complainant himself and not opposite party. After receiving the registered letter opposite party went to the house of complainant to enquire about it and found the service disconnected. Opposite party could not restore the connection due to obstruction made by complainant. That opposite party is always ready and willing to restore the connection. That complainant is not entitled to any amount as prayed for.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both sides. Exts.A1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. No documents marked on behalf of opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The undisputed facts of this case are that complainant availed the cable connection from opposite party and that the service is disconnected in July, 2007. According to complainant the transmission was defective and the channels were not clear. Even though he complained about this to opposite party, the problem was not rectified. It is alleged that the relationship between them strained when opposite party came to know that complainant had told some of his friends about the defective transmission. Complainant contends that opposite party forcefully disconnected the service on 24-7-07 and also demeaned him in front of onlooking neighbours by saying that the service is disconnected for non-payment of rent. Opposite party has no case that complainant has defaulted payment of rent. Opposite party resists the complaint and states that the transmission as clear and proper. Opposite party fortifies that complainant had entrusted opposite party for televising an advertisement of 'Arabian Jwellery' owned by complainant. That their relationships became strained because complainant was dissatisfied that the telecast of advertisement did not help much in the promotion of his business. Admittedly the cable service is disconnected. Both sides raise rival claims as to the incident that led to disconnection. The question to be decided is which version is true. The origin of the grievance put forward by complainant rests upon the alleged fact that cable transmission was defective and channels were not clear. The initial burden to establish a case, though light, necessarily is upon the complainant. Ext.A3 to A8 are the rent receipts which prove that complainant was paying the rent till July, 2007 without fail. If the transmission was defective complainant would not have paid rent every month without any demur. So the case of complainant that opposite party developed hostility because he disclosed to his friends about the defective transmission is not believable nor probable. It can reasonably be inferred that due to some conflict between the parties the cable service was disconnected in July, 2007. According to complainant opposite party forcefully disconnected the service on 24-7-07. Opposite party refutes this allegation and contends that complainant himself has disconnected the service. This case has been filed almost two months after disconnection. The facts reveal that the litigation is an outcome of some hidden altercation and strained relationship between the parties. We hold that complainant is entitled to have the service restored. In the circumstances of the case, we do not think it necessary to award any compensation and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and order opposite party to restore the cable service connection of complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 12th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8<br /> Ext.A1 : Photo copy of the request dated, 25-7-07 submitted by complainant<br /> to Sub Inspector of Police, Tirurangadi.<br /> Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the notice with acknowledgement card dated, 26-7-07 <br /> send by complainant to opposite party.<br /> Ext.A3 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 05-7-07 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A4 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 04-6-07 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A5 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 03-5-06 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A6 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 04-2-07 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A7 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 06-3-07 from opposite party to complainant. <br /> Ext.A8 : Receipt for Rs.135/- dated, 04-4-07 from opposite party to complainant. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br />