IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM,

DATED THIS THE  29^th     DAY OF  JULY    , 2013

Present: Smt. G. Vasanthakumari, President,

Adv. Ravisusha, Member

CC.NO. 269/2011

Sri. Siyad Khan,

Thoppil Veedu,Arafa Nagar- 21,

Kayyalakkal Cheri,Kolloor Vila Division,

 Kollam.

V/s

1.       The Manager,

Asianet Satelite Communication Dept.

Kadapakkada,

Kollam.

2.       Musthafa

Afafa Manzil,Arafa Nagar-22,

Kayyalakkal Cheri,

Kolloorvila Division, Kollam.

(Adv.Oachira N.Anilkumar )

                                                                                            ORDER

SMT. Adv.Ravisusha, Member

                Brief of complainant’s case is that he was a consumer  of the  Asianet Satellite communications Ltd six year before.  On 17.07.07 the complainant had

  (2)

taken the digital connection  of the  Asianet by paying Rs. 4980/-  While so due to demand  of subscription by the field  worker the 1^st  opposite party disconnected the connection.  Thereafter on 05.09.2010 the complainant  again applied for the  connection to the 1^st opposite party.  But they did not give connection.  According to the complainant, it was due to some external interference,  the 1^st  opposite party is not  interested to give connection to him.    Further alleged that the 2^nd opposite party influenced the 1^st opposite party and thereby the 1^st  opposite party  is not giving connection to him.

            First opposite party  filed version  contending that the complainant / petitioner  is not a consumer of Asianet Satellite communication Ltd.  He has no locustandi to file this petition in the status of an earlier consumer.  There is no consumer trader relationship between the party.    The relief sought against the first opposite party is not at all  allowable and no  such  relief  can be  granted.  The 1^st  opposite party has not caused any loss or damages to the petitioner .  It was due to the demand of subscription by the field worker, the connection was disconnected is false, hence is denied.  It  was the petitioner who refused the connection  from 2008 and  left Asianet.  He again demanded connection on 05-

                                                                  (3)

09-2010 and Asianet promised to give  connection is also false .  The  alleged notice send by the petitioner to first opposite party  never requested or demanded for connection  but only demanded  to send “ A statement facts”.  The petitioner  has no right to claim any statement from opposite party.   The 1^st  opposite party reliably  believe that this petition is only  one of the  disputes between the petitioner and the  2^nd opposite  party.  The 1^st opposite party  is unnecessarily  dragged into this litigation. Asianet  has absolutely  no relationship between the 2^nd opposite party.  The alleged  facts in the complaint regarding murders, women racket etc is seem to be  the enimity caused between the petitioner and the 2^nd  opposite party.  The 1^st  party deny all such averment  contained in this petition.  The 1^st  opposite  party doesn’t  intent  to give connection  to the petitioner eventhough he has not demanded.  He  is not a consumer of 1^st opposite party.

            Hence it is most humbly prays that  this Hon’ble forum may be pleased to dismiss the original petition with compensatory  cost  of 1^st  opposite  party for the ends of justice.

                                                                        (4)

2^nd opposite  party filed separate  version stating that the complainant  was a consumer  of Asianet  Satellite communications Ltd  six years  before. On 17.07.07 the complainant had  taken the  digital connection of the  Asianet  by paying  Rs. 4980/-.  While so due to non payment of the monthly installment, the 1^st opposite party disconnected the connection.  Thereafter on 05.09.10 the complainant applied for connection to the 1^st respondent.  But they didn’t  turned up to the request of the complainant.  On enquiry  it is revealed to him that due to some external interference, the 1^st respondent  is not  interested to give  connection   to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant is believing that the 2^nd  respondent  influenced  the 1^st  respondent  and thereby the 1^st respondent  is not  giving connection to him.

            The respondent filed his version stating that  he has no connection with the 1^st  respondent.  He is not in any way contacted the 1^st  respondent  and not   conspired  to deny  connection  to the complainant.  It is submitted  that the complainant is a  habitual litigant  filing  frivolous complaints against the 2^nd   respondent  before all forums to wreck personal vengeance against him.  The

                                                                        (5)

complaint  filed before the Hon’ble Forum  is also such a type  of complaint and is a frivolous and vexatious one  with out any legal or factual basis.

Points:- (1) Whether  the complainant  is a consumer of the opposite parties?

(2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

Points 1 and 2

Point:1.    According to the opposite parties, the complainant  is not a consumer of the opposite parties, since there is no  service provided or promised to provide by the opposite parties.  1^st opposite party contended that the  complainants allegation that  due to the demand  of  subscription by the  field worker, the connection was disconnected is false.  According to 1^st opposite party it was the complainant  who refused the connection from 2008 and left Asianet.  The  complainant in cross- examination  stated that  in the  year 2007, the  connection was cancelled by the  1^st opposite party  due to non –payment of monthly instalment.The complainant’s said deposition  clears that there is no 

                                                                        (6)

service deficiency on the  part of the 1^st opposite party.  Complainants allegation is that he  had applied for 2^nd connection.  But copy of no such application  is produced before the forum.  According to 1^st opposite party the  complainant  only demanded   to send a statement  of facts.  Ext. P2 also  shows that the complainant  only demanded statement of facts.  From that it is revealed  that the complainant’s allegation is false.  Hence from the evidence, we are of the  opinion that   the 1^st opposite party is unnecessarily dragged into this litigation.  The 1^st  opposite  has not caused any loss or damages to the complainant.  Further the complainant  alleged that the  2^nd opposite party had influenced the 1^st opposite party  to deny  satellite connection  to the complainant.  But no evidence has been adduced by the complainant to prove  the said allegation.  There is no evidence  that the 1^st opposite party has any  relationship between 2^nd opposite party.  The alleged facts on the complaint regarding murders, woman racket etc is seen to be the enimity  caused between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

            On considering the entire  evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant has no right  to claim any compensation from the opposite parties.

                                                            (7)

In the result the complaint fails and is dismissed without cost.

                                                Dated this the 29^th    day of July , 2013.                                             

G. Vasanthakumari-Sd/-

                        Adv. Ravisusha-Sd/-

                        Forwarded by Order

                        Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX 

Witness of the complainant

PW-1-Sri.Ziad Khan

Documents of the complainant

Exbt.P1-Provisional Receipt

Exbt. P2- Letter  given to opposite party by complainant  dated 13/09/2011

Exbt.P3-Acknowledgement Card

Exbt.P4-ADTV booking cum installation report

Ext.p5-complainant

Exbt.P6- High court judgement

Exbt.p7- copy of letter the Director  General of NIA

Exbt.P8-complainant

Exbt. P9-copy of complainant (given to minister)