Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/16/25

Satnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.K.Cable Network - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Gurpreet Singh, Adv.

25 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                       

BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR

                               Consumer Complaint No. :  25 of 20.05.2016

                                Date of decision                      : 25.10.2016

 

Satnam Singh, aged about 33 years, son of Surinder Pal Singh @ Bhura, resident of House No.1956, Ali Mohalla, Bela Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & Disttrict Rupnagar,1140001.  

                                                                      ......Complainant

                                             Versus

1. H.K. Cable Network, Booth No.95, Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Rupnagar 1400001 through its Prop.

 

2. Fastway Transmission Pvt. Ltd. Lajjay Tower, near EPF Building Sham Nagar, Ludhiana 141002 through its Managing Director Gurdeep Singh

 

 2^nd address- Grand Walk Mall, 5^th Floor, Opposite Gurdev Hospital, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana 141002.  

 

                                                                    ....Opposite Parties

 

                                Complaint under Section 12 of the                                                    Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

QUORUM

                      MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                      MRS. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY

 

             Sh. Amandeep Saini, Advocate, counsel for                                      complainant

            Opposite Party No.1 & 2 ex-parte

 

 

ORDER

 

                               MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

 

   Sh. Satnam Singh, has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.Ps.’)

1.             In brief, the case of the complainant is that he has taken a cable connection from the O.Ps. They are charging subscription of Rs.600/- i.e. Rs.400/- for HD pack for first connection and Rs.200/- for subsequent gold pack cable connection, per month for the use of the cable network for two cable connections issued in his name. He is paying the subscription fee every month to the O.Ps. At the time of issuance of the connection to him, the O.Ps., promised to show all 346 channels under the mode of HD connection. Surprisingly, 15 days before filing this complaint, the O.Ps. stopped to give transmission of approximately 35-40 channels of Zee Network without giving any intimation or notice to him, inspite of the fact that he had paid the entire subscription fee as agreed upon. It is further stated that channels blocked by the O.Ps. are very much necessary for him, as some of them are the news channels, entertainment channels, sports channels, regional channels, HD channels, Cartoon channels etc. Infact, he opted the services of the O.Ps. with subscription of these channels of Zee Network, which are stopped by the O.Ps without any reason, cause. The service provided by the O.Ps. is of no use, if the channel blocked are not released. He is suffering by this strange action of the O.Ps. When he contacted the O.P. No.1 and enquired regarding the blocking of the channels of Zee Network then it was unable to answer to him. Even, he had lodged the complaint at Fastway Consumer Service No.9217092170 but no action has been taken so far.  As such, the O.Ps. have not only committed deficiency in service but  have also indulged in unfair trade practice. Therefore, it is prayed that the O.Ps. be directed to release all the channels of the cable. They be also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment, Rs.10000/- as cost of litigation along with interest @ 12% per annum till its realization in the interest of justice.  
2. On being put to notice, the O.P. No. 1 filed written version stating therein that answering O.P. has provided 400 channels to the complainant under the Gold Pack, Silver pack, Platinum pack and HD pack. Due to dispute between O.P. No.2 and G tunner company, the O.P. No.2 stopped transmission of the G tunner channels. But inspite of that the answering O.P. was providing G tunner channels to the other customers by charging extra amount. At that time the company had displayed the rates of the channels on the screen of the Television. The O.P. No.2, restarted transmission of all the said channels and same are being provided to the customers by it. So there was no fault on the part of the answering O.P. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof with costs.
3.       None having appeared on behalf of the O.P. No. 2, inspite of issuance of notice through registered A.D. cover, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.08.2016.  After filing written version, the O.P. No.1 was also proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.10.2016.
4.           On being called upon to do so, the complainant tendered his                      affidavit, Ex. C1, along with photocopies of documents Ex.C2 to            Ex.C11 and closed the evidence .  
5.          We have heard the learned counsel complainant, and gone     through the record of the file, including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully.
6.          From the receipts, Ex.C2 to Ex.C9, it is evident that the complainant was paying the subscription fee regularly. The allegation of the complainant is that the O.Ps. stopped transmission of approximately 35-40 channels of zee network without giving any intimation to him. In the written version, filed by O.P. No.1, it is stated that due to dispute between O.P. No.2 and G tunner company, the O.P. No.2 stopped transmission of G Tunner channels. None has appeared on behalf of O.P. No.2 to controvert the contention of the complainant and O.P. No.1, therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve their contention. Once, the complainant was paying the subscription fee, regularly then the service provider cannot stop transmission of particular channels arbitrarily. But the O.P. No.2 by blocking the transmission of the said channels has committed deficiency in service and caused inconvenience to the complainant, therefore, it is certainly liable to compensate the complainant. The O.P. No.1, itself has stated in its written version that when O.P. No.2, stopped transmission of G tunner Channels, then it transmitted the said channels to its customers by charging extra amount. No document has been placed on record to show that when O.P. No.2 stopped transmitting the G tunner channels, then the O.P. No.1, was entitled to charge extra amount from its customers, for transmission of G tunner channels. It may be stated that, when O.P. No.1 had already taken subscription fee from the complainant for transmission of G tunner channels, then it was its bounded duty to transmit the said channels on the cable connection of the complainant, without charging any extra amount. By not transmitting the said channels on the cable connection of the complainant, it has committed deficiency in service, therefore, it is also liable to compensate the complainant along with O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.1, in its written version has categorically stated that the O.P. No.2, restarted transmission of all the said channels and the same are being provided to the customers by it. During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant has not raised any objection regarding non transmission of the said channels by the O.Ps. Therefore, no direction in this regard is required to be issued by this Forum. 

 

7.         In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the         complaint against O.Ps. with a direction to pay a lump sum amount        of Rs.5000/- to the complainant . The O.Ps. are further    directed to comply with the said order jointly and severally, within a period of 30 days from the receipt of the certified copy of this order.      

8.         The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties    forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the      file     be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                           (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 25.10.2016                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                  (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                    MEMBER.