DATE OF FILING : 06-08-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 08-09-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 31-07-2015.
Raghuvansh Prasad Varms
son of late Rajeshwar Prasad
resident of 90/91, Bharab Ghatak Lane, , P.S. M.P. Ghora
District-Howrah…………………………………………………………………….Complainant
-Vs. –
- Hathway Cable & Data Com. Ltd.,
Ecostation 2nd floor, Plot No. 7, Block-BP, Salt Lake, Sector, V,
Kolkata-700 091
- The Branch Manager,
Hathway Branch office, Unit 202, Ware House, No. 12,
Jagachha, District-Howrah,
PIN711 302
- Mr. Dilip Paul (Agent),
94/1, Bhairah Ghatak Lane, Bandhaghat,
Pin -711106.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
This is an application U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, filed by the Petitioner Raghuvansh Prasad Varms praying for immediate reconnection of his cable line by the O.P. Hathya Cable & Data com. Ltd. and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the damage caused to him and Rs. 25000/- each for physical and mental harassment .
The case of the petitioner is that he is a consumer under the O.P. as he took a package Rs. 212/- per month from the O.P. who is a service provider and who provided Sonny Six Channel till 11.06.2014 and then disconnected the cable line without informing the petitioner. The petitioner took the cable line on the basis of the agreement with O.P. who promised to give Sonny Six channel and by disconnection the O.P. caused deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.
The O.P.s contested the case by filing a written version wherein they denied the allegations made against them. They further submitted that the O.P. No. 1 is the cable operator and the O.P. No. 2 is the manager of the O.P. No. 1 and the O.P. No. 3 is the service provider of the cable services through its cable television in the area and collecting money from the petitioner. The petitioner neglected to pay the bill for the month of June and July,2014 though he enjoyed the services and filed the false case which should be dismissed with cost.
On the above cases of the parties the following issues are frame :
- Is the case maintainable in the present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.s ?
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with reason
All this issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion and to skip of reiteration . In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit and one channel request form of the O.P. providing the facts that he applied for the digital starter package of Rs. 180/- and he also filed the money receipt for the month of May,14 showing payment of Rs. 212/- including service tax ,education cess and amusement tax on 10.05.2014. On the back side of said money receipt the listed of digital T.V. channels are mentioned showing the various packages of Rs. 100/- , Rs. 180/-, Rs. 230/- and Rs. 280/- per month and taxes. On security of the documents this Forum finds in the package of Rs. 180/- wherein Sony six channel is included and thus the petitioner is entitled to avail the channel.
For non-payment of monthly charges to the O.P., service provider ought to have informed the petitioner that his cable service connection would be disconnected for non-payment of monthly charges by serving a notice but no document to that effect. The O.P.s failed to produce any document proving that they served any notice on the petitioner and rather the O.P. in their written version submitted that the petitioner enjoyed the service of the O.P. for the month of June and July,14 without payment and thus their relationship ended and so this motivated case was filed to malign the reputation of the O.P.s and the same be dismissed even though no document that petitioner enjoyed cable line for June and July, 2014. . Under the C.P. Act,1986 is provided the definition of the’ service’ which means “Service of any description and thus providing cable Network service also come within the jurisdiction of the Act. It is the admitted case of parties that there was an agreement between the petitioner and the O.Ps. who would provided service to the cable service to the petitioner on payment of monthly charges and the O.P. service provider thus cannot disconnection such service connection without notice to the petitioner. The disconnection of cable service without any notice is an act of illegal disconnection by the O.P. and such illegal disconnection amounts to deficiency in service for which the petitioner is entitled to compensation as well as the petitioner is entitled to reconnection of the service by the service provider without incurring any cost by the petitioner.
In view of the above discussion and findings this Forum finds that there was gross deficiency in service on the part of the O.p. who should reconnect the line as well as pay compensation for the physical and mental suffering undergone by the Petitioner.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the Consumer Case No. 434/2014 be and the same is allowed in contest with cost against the O.P.s. The petitioner is entitled to get back his cable connection as it was there in May,2014 by the O.P.s without paying any reconnection charge within 30 days of this order . The petitioner is also entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs. 1000/- for the mental and physical harassment and also entitled to Rs. 1000/- as the cost of litigation. The O.P.s must comply the above order within the stipulated period mentioned failing which the petitioner is to put the final order of the Forum in execution.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
