KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 512/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 17 . 5.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER Asianet Sattellite Communication Ltd., : APPELLANT Head Office at 3rd Floor, Karimpanal Arcade, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv.Cherinniyoor P.Sasidharan Nair) Vs. K.V.Stalin, : RESPONDENT S/o Viswambaran,Kalarickal House, Aramkulam.P.O., Manisseri, Ottappalam Taluk,Palakkad. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC.121/2003 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellant is under orders to shift the cable TV connection to the residence of the complainant within a period of one month failing which the opposite party is to pay Rs.1500/- plus interest at the rate of 7% per annum to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a cable T.V. connection from the opposite party on 18.8.04 and later the complainant shifted his residence to Manissery. He applied for shifting the connection on 7.6.05. It is his case that the opposite party directed the complainant to obtain 10 more connections from the locality for getting the connection shifted. It is his case that the nearest cable point is 350 metres away from his house. It is also pointed out that the opposite party has already provided connection to 2 houses 50 metres near to his house . As per the terms of subscribership he is entitled to get the connection shifted and he has sought for compensation of Rs.10000/- also. 3. The opposite party/appellant has contended that as per clause 5 of the terms of subscribership it was bound to provide shifting of connection only if cable grid was in existence and in operation in the new location and the subscriber has to wait till the cabling reaches his locality. It is pointed out that the nearest cabling point to the house of the complainant is 350 metres away. They will have to provide cabling for 350 metres by erecting 6 poles which is not viable . It is also pointed out that signal tap point is situated 350 metres away from his residence. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavit of the respective parties and Exts. A1 to A4. 5. It is mentioned in the order of the Forum that it is true that as per the clause 5 of the terms of subscribership the subscriber has to wait till the cabling reaches his locality for shifting. The Forum has noted that the signal tap point is not far from the residence of the complainant and that the cabling can be completed within a short period of time. It was thus the Forum ordered to shift the cable TV connection to the new location. The appellant is produced the terms of subscribership printed on the reverse side of the subscription details/connection installation receipt. As per clause 5 therein it is specifically mentioned that if Asianet cable grid is not in existence at the new place of transfer the subscriber has to wait until the cabling reaches his locality and that the Asianet will not be liable for any claim on this account. We find that the direction to provide the connection within one month in the circumstances is contrary to the terms of subscribership. To shift the cable TV connection to a distance of 350 metres wherein cable grid is not in existence would not be viable for the opposite party in such circumstances. Hence we find that the order of the Forum can not be sustained. The same is set aside and appeal is allowed. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
