BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 374/2001 Filed on 18..09..2001

Dated: 30..01..2009

Complainant:

Kuttukkanakath Bava, Farzana Manzil, Puthuponnani Road, Ponnani South, Malappuram Dist.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

Opposite party:

Asianet Satellite Communications Limited, Corporate Office, Centre Plaza, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram, reprsented by its General Manager.

(By Adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 24..11..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2009, the Forum on 30..01..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant had deposited an amount of 300 U.S Dollars on 16..05..1994 with opposite party to get Asianet connection in his family house at Puthuponnani, Malappuram District. Opposite party had assured that the connection would be given without any delay as they had already launched the cable net work in almost all districts and steps were taken for giving connection in Malappuram District. Complainant was eagerly waiting for the cable connection and on 01..01..1995 the opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant informing that the connections in Malappuram District are scheduled to be given from August 1995. Though the opposite party had promised to give connection in August 1995, no steps were taken for the same. As such a letter was sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 15..11..1995 expressing his dissatisfaction and requesting the opposite party to take immediate steps for giving cable connection to his family house. Opposite party sent reply to the letter dated 15..11..1995 stating that they are ready to give connection in some other districts or to refund the deposit amount with interest. It was a bolt from the blue to the complainant as he had never expected such a reply from the opposite party. Connection letter dated 16..02..1996 was sent to the opposite party by the complainant, neither the connection nor any reply was given by the opposite party to the said letter. On 20..10..1999 a letter was received by the complainant informing that opposite party was ready and willing to give connection in other places nominated by the complainant or to refund the deposit amount with interest. The action of the opposite party is clear unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to give Asianet cable connection to the complainant's residence at Puthuponnani and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and cost of the complaint.

2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complaint is barred by limitation. Complainant had deposited an amount of 300 U.S Dollars. Complainant had joined the NRI Scheme because of the benefits offered to those who join the scheme. It is false to say that opposite party had assured to give connection within a specified date. But there was an assurance that the scheme depositors would be paid interest at FCNR rate till the date of connection. There was absolutely no lapse on the part of the opposite party in not giving any area within the coverage. It was due to reasons beyond the control of the opposite party. Opposite party sent a letter stating that the cabling plan and connection schedule for Malappuram District would commence from August 1995 onwards. Opposite party had explained the various initial difficulties experienced by the opposite party due to reasons beyond his control. To reduce the difficulties of the depositors the opposite party had offered several options to the complainant. Opposite party had not promised to give cable connection immediately on depositing money. There was absolutely no intention on the part of the opposite party to put the complainant in difficulty. The industry was in its infancy and therefore some problems would normally arise. Opposite party did not do anything with the intention to commit anything wrong. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

3. The points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complaint is barred by period of limitation?

2. Whether opposite party is liable to give Asianet cable connection to complainant's residence?

3. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

4. Reliefs and Costs?

4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit of himself as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P8. In rebuttal, the Senior Vice President of the opposite party has filed counter affidavit. Opposite party did not file any documents.

5. Points (i) to (iv) : Admittedly, complainant had deposited a sum of U.S $ 300 on 16..05..1994 with the opposite party believing the offer of the opposite party vide NRI privilege connection scheme. As per the said scheme, complainant's house would get cable connection on remittance of the said amount. Ext.P1 is the receipt dated 10..05..1994 for $ 300 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.P2 is the copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant after the receipt of the said deposit. It is the case of the complainant that after the receipt of the said amount cable connection was not given to his residence till the date of the complaint, though opposite party had promised to give connection in August 1995, that no steps were taken for the same and that a letter by Ext.P4 was sent by the complainant to the opposite party on 15..11..1995. In response to Ext.P4 letter, a reply dated 24..11..1995 by Ext.P5 was sent by the opposite party stating that they are ready to give connection in some other districts in some other's name nominated by the complainant or to refund the deposit with interest. Aggrieved by the opposite party's action, a letter dated 16..02..1996 by Ext.P6 was sent to opposite party, but neither connection nor any reply was given by the opposite party to Ext.P6. It has been rebutted by opposite party by submitting that opposite party had never promised to give cable connection immediately on depositing money, that to mitigate the difficulties of the depositors, opposite party had promised to pay interest on FCNR rates, and that the options they available were also intimated to the complainant. Opposite party did not file any documents. Evidently from the date of receipt of amount, (that is, 16..05..1994) till the period of filing of the complaint (that is 18..09..2001), no cable connection has been provided to the complainant. In view of the above, we find the particular offer is devoid of bonafides. The scheme ought to have been floated after making arrangements to provide the connection. Evidently there was no infrastructure to connect the cable in complainant's area. The undertaking in Ext.P2 brochure that if connection could not be provided within 3 months interest would be paid on the amount received would clearly give rise to an expectation that the cable connection would be provided at least within 3 months. We find that the said activity of the opposite party really amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The opposite party had kept the expectation of the complainant alive till the date of filing or some proximate period before the date of filing of the complaint. In the circumstances, the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is barred by period of limitation cannot be upheld. No purpose will be served if opposite party is directed to give connection after a lapse of 14 years. Taking into consideration of totality of circumstances, we find justice will be well met if complainant is allowed to receive the amount equal to the monetory value of $ 300 with interest at 12% from 16..05..1994 and a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall pay an amount equal to the monetory value of $ 300 as on 30/1/2009 with 12% interest thereon from 10/5/1994 to the complainant. Opposite party shall also pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twentyfive thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. The said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 18% if not paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30^th day of January, 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

ad.

O.P.No.374/2001

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness : NIL

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of receipt dated 16/05/1994

P2 : Copy of letter sent by the opp. Party dated 1/7/1994

P3 : Copy of letter dated 1/1/1995 issued by opp. Party

P3(a) Copy of Newspaper cuttings produced by opp. Party

P4 : Copy of letter dated 15/11/1995 sent by the complainant to the opp. Party.

P5 : Copy of reply letter issued to the complainant by opposite party

P6 : Copy of letter dated 16/2/1996 issued by the complainant to the opp. Party.

P7 : In the affidavit letter dated 20/10/1999 worked as Ext.P7. But it seen that P7 marked as Ext.P8.

P8 : Copy of letter dated 20/10/99 issued to the complainant.

3. Opposite party's witness : NIL

IV. Opposite party's documents: NIL

PRESIDENT