PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is a customer of opponents for cable network with the help of Set Top Box. He had not made payment for the year 2012-2013 on account of change of circumstances. There was correspondence between the parties and TRAI. After receiving verbal assurance from Ramdas and LCO the complainant made payment to LCO for the year 2012-13 after deducting certain amount. Again the complainant withheld the payment in the second consecutive year of 2013-14. The complainant enjoyed all world cup foot ball matches during April-June2014. T.V. connection was abruptly stopped on 12/07/2014. There was correspondence and talk on phone. Mr. Mayekar visited the house of complainant and told that, Set Top Box was faulty. LCO sent bill dated 28/07/2014. In spite of several request T.V. connection was not started therefore complainant filed this complaint with the prayer to direct the opponents to start T.V. forthwith and to pay compensation of Rs.4.5 lakh. He has also claimed litigation cost.
2) The opponents appeared and filed their written statement on 07/05/2015. It is submitted that, cable connection is in the name of Mrs.Geeta Samant and not in the name of complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant has not paid cable connection charges therefore he has no right to file this complaint. The complainant cannot compel the opponents to provide services without charges. The complainant is not willing to pay replacement charges of his Set Top Box and also regular subscription charges. Therefore, he is not entitled for the services. Subscription form was submitted to the mother of the complainant for obtaining connection but the same was not filled up. It is necessary to submit necessary information of the customer for filing return under Maharashtra Entertainment Duty Tax Act. The cost of replacement charges of Set Top Box is Rs.950/- but the same was not paid by the complainant. In the absence of subscription Set Top Box cannot be activated. The services were terminated due to non-payment of charges there is no deficiency on the part of opponents. There for the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
3) After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr.no. | Points | Finding |
1) | Whether the complainant is consumer? | Yes |
2) | Whether there is deficiency in service? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed ? | No |
4) | What Order ? | As per final order - |
REASONS
4) As to Point No.1 to 3 :- Admittedly, the complainant is not the customer of the opponents. His mother was the customer. In compliant para- A the complainant has stated that, he had not made payment for the year 2012-13 on account of change of circumstances. In para-D of the complaint the complainant has stated that, he made payment to LCO for the financial year 2012-13 after deducting certain amount. In para H+I+J of the complaint the complainant has stated that, again he withheld the payment in the second consecutive year i.e. 2013-14. On the next page in the same para, the complainant has stated that, he enjoyed all world cup foot ball matches during April-June 2014. In the same para, he has stated that, T.V. was abruptly stopped on 12/07/2014. There was correspondence between the parties and TRAI. From the complaint itself, it is clear that, the complainant was not regular in paying subscription charges. There are no averments in the complaint about the subscription payment after the year 2012-13. According to opponents as complainant failed to pay subscription charges, services were disconnected. In order to claim services from the opponents, the complainant is bound to pay subscription charges. According to complainant he is entitled for the channels which are free to AIR. It appears that, the complainant wants to enjoy the channels from the opponents which are free to AIR. If the complainant is claiming services from opponents then he has to pay consideration to the opponents. If the complainant wants services free of charge his claim is excluded under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. It appears that, complainant has filed this complaint to enjoy the services from the opponents free of charges. There are no averments in the complaints about payment. He has also not stated that, he is ready to pay the charges. On the contrary, he is claiming services free of charges.
5) The complainant has submitted that, the cable connection is in the name of his mother and he is the beneficiary therefore he is the consumer. For this purpose he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Goa State Commission in the case of Mrs. Karishma Maira Joenilla –Vs- M/s.Naguesh Mahalaxmi Gas in CC No.03/2008 dated 03/08/2012 and Hon’ble Supreme Court in civil appeal no.4432-4450/2012 dated 10/05/2012. In view of these judgments beneficiary is also a consumer. In the instant complaint before us there is no dispute that, the mother of complainant was the consumer and the complainant is the beneficiary. The main dispute is about providing services of cable network without payment of charges. Therefore, the provision of section 2(1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act is relevant. Under this provision service free of charge is excluded. At this juncture, we would like to place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishore Lal –Vs- Chairman, Employees State dated 08/05/2007. In para-7 of the judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“The definition of ‘consumer’ in the CP Act is apparently wide enough and encompasses within its fold not only the goods but also the services, bought or hired, for the consideration. Such consideration may be paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such person other than the person who hires the services for consideration. The Act being a beneficial legislation, aims to protect the interests of a consumer as understood in the business parlance. The important characteristics of goods and services under the Act are that they are supplied at a price to cover the costs and generate profit or income for the seller of goods or provider of services. The comprehensive definition aims at covering every man who pays money as the price or cost of goods and services. However, by virtue of the definition, the person who obtains goods for resale or for any commercial purpose is excluded, but the services hired for consideration even for commercial purposes are not excluded. The term ‘service’ unambiguously indicates in the definition that the definition is not restrictive and includes within its ambit such services as well which are specified therein. However, a service hired or availed, which does not cost anything or can be said free of charge, or under a contract of personal service, is not included within the meaning of ‘service’ for the purposes of the CP Act.”
In the instant complaint before us also the complainant is claiming services from opponents without paying charges. In view of the above said law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court free of charge services are excluded for the purpose of CPA. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief under Consumer Protection Act without paying consideration. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of opponents. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
- Complaint stands dismissed.
- Parties are left to bear their own costs.
- Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 15th July, 2016
