Kerala

Idukki

CC/230/2019

Narayanan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kutai - Opp.Party(s)

15 Mar 2023

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23/12/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 15^th day of March 2023

Present :

              SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR                                               PRESIDENT

              SMT.ASAMOL P.                                                          MEMBER

              SRI.AMPADY K.S.                                                        MEMBER

CC NO.230/2019

Between

Complainant                          :  Narayanan, S/o Padbhanabhan,

                                                  Kunnel House,

                                                  Ezhalloor Kara, Kumaramangalam Village,

                                                 Thodupuzha Taluk.

                                                 (By Adv.Biju R.Naduviledathu)

                                                           And

Opposite Party                       : 1 .  Kuttai @ Jojimon, S/o Kunjumon,                 

                                                       Karimalakkottil House,

                                                       Perumbillichira Kara,

                                                       Kumaramangalam, Thodupuzha.

                                                 2 .  Kerala Vision Cable TV office,

                                                       Nodal Office, Thankappamenon Road,

                                                       Puthukkadu, Thrissur – 680 301.        

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER                          

 

This complaint is filed under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 raising  certain allegations against opposite parties.  Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:-

First opposite party is engaged in giving cable TV service on behalf of 2^nd opposite party in the locality of complainant.  He contacted 1^st opposite party being   the   agent   of   2^nd   opposite   party  for  obtaining  internet  

                                                                                               (Cont.....2)

-2-

service.  1^st opposite party made him to believe that service given by 2^nd opposite party is better compared to other service providers and several schemes are available to them and is entitled to switch to other schemes offered by them at any time.  Based on the assurance given by 1^st opposite party, he entrusted him to provide internet service and he paid Rs.6000/- on 05/06/2019 towards one year subscription and other expenses for installation of cable.  Accordingly, modem was installed on 27/06/2019 and charged the line on 16/07/2019.  On 22/07/2019 he received message in his mobile stating that connection is provided.  But at that time, 1^st opposite party had paid one month subscription only to 2^nd opposite party.  He received message in next month requesting to pay the monthly charge for previous month and he came to know this fact only at that time.  As 1^st opposite party had not paid the amount given by him, he got request to remit further monthly subscription.  Again 1^st  opposite party remitted one month’s subscription only.  Thereafter,  on 22/09/2019 and 24/09/2019, he received message from 2^nd opposite party requesting to remit monthly subscription.  Though he informed 1^st opposite party about this, he had not remitted the advance annual subscription paid by him to the 2^nd opposite party.  Though he requested to refund the balance amount after deducting labour charge, 1^st opposite party did not paid the same.  Hence, he filed complaint before Thodupuzha Police but due to his adamant  character, problem was not resolved.  Inaction on the part of 1^st opposite party is deficiency in service and this is for obtaining wrongful gain.  Necessity for obtaining interest connection has arisen as his son was in abroad.   His son charged the connection for Rs.474/- from abroad on his behalf.  As the 1^st opposite party disconnected the service, he could not use the service.  Thereafter, he availed mobile internet connection and he spent Rs.2000/- towards usage charges and other expenses.  1^st opposite party being the agent of 2^nd opposite party,  both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the loss and mental agony caused to him.  It is stated that he will

                                                                                                        (Cont.....3)

-3-

produce necessary documents and evidence to prove his case in due course.

For these, he prayed for the following reliefs.

1 . Direct 1^st opposite party to remit balance amount outstanding after deducting  2 months subscription paid by him to 2^nd opposite party and to re-instate the internet connection.

2 . Direct opposite parties to give service for the amount paid online by his son from abroad.

3 .  Allow Rs.2000/- towards the expenses for obtaining mobile connection.

4 . Allow compensation of Rs.10,000/-

5 . Award litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-

6 . Direct 2^nd opposite party to take action against 1^st opposite party.

7 . Such other reliefs, this Commission deem fit and proper.

Notice sent from this Commission was served on both opposite parties.   But there was no representation from their side.  Besides, no written version was also filed.  Complainant was also continuously absent though case was posted for his evidence.  This shows that complainant is not vigilant in prosecuting the matter.  Hence, this complaint is disposed of on merits as follows.

 On a perusal of complaint following points arise for consideration.

1 . Whether the complainant established deficiency in service alleged?

2 . If so, for what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

3 . Reliefs and costs.

(Cont.....4)

-4-

Point No.1

Complainant has stated in complaint that he shall produce necessary documents and evidence to prove the case in due course.  But no documents were filed by him or appeared before this Commission for tendering evidence.   It is the duty of complainant to establish his case and the deficiency in service alleged.  None of the allegations were proved by the complainant.

As he failed to establish deficiency in service with the support of evidence, we are of the considered view that complaint averments are not proved.  Alleged deficiency in service remains unproved.  Hence point No.1 is answered as above.

Point Nos.2 and 3 are considered together

In the light of our findings on point No.1, we are inclined to hold that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs prayed for.  So point Nos.2 and 3 are answered accordingly.

In the result, complaint is dismissed as devoid of merits.  There will be no order as to costs.

Complainant shall take back extra copies filed without delay.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 15^th  day of March 2023.

                                                                                                         Sd/-

                                                                            SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                  SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                         SMT.ASAMOL P., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Nil         

                                                                                  Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                            ASSISTANT  REGISTRAR