Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/47

AMARJIT SINGH WALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGING DIRECTOR FASTWAY CABLE - Opp.Party(s)

Sunil Chawla

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

     DISTRICT  CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL   FORUM,   FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         47

Date of Institution :   14.02.2017

Date of Decision :      11.08.2017

Amarjit Singh Walia aged about 57 years s/o Inderjit Singh Walia r/o Gali Bedian, Main  Bazar, Faridkot Tehsil and District Faridkot, Mob. No. 98156-51797.  

                                                              ...Complainant

Versus

1. FASTWAY Cable Network Pvt Ltd, Lajya Tower, near EPF Building, Sham Nagar, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana through its Managing Director.
2. Puri Cable Network, Faridkot through Sunil Puri Incharge/authorized person, r/o Mohalla Bathan Wala, Faridkot, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

                                           ........ OPs

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Sunil Chawla, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Ashwani Arora, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

 OP-1 Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

                                                Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to OPs to provide cable facility immediately to complainant having connection numbers 08803920091B and 0880392114A4, to refund the excess amount charged alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony and as litigation expenses.

2                                  Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that complainant got installed two cable connections from OPs at his premises and OPs were charging Rs.500/-per month for these connections. It came to the notice of complainant that actual rates fixed by OP-1 are Rs.270/- for 1^st set up box and Rs.205/-for 2^nd set up box, but OP-2 was illegally charging Rs.500/-for these connections and thus, every month he was charging excess amount from complainant. Complainant requested OP-2 to not to charge excess amount, but he did not pay any heed to his requests. Thereafter, complainant complained the matter to OP-1 through his mobile phone and reported this wrong act of OP-2 of charging excess amount than prescribed rates from complainant, but OP-1 also did not pay any heed to his request and did not take any action. Thereafter, on 21.10.2016, OPs illegally disconnected the cable connection of complainant and despite repeated requests made by complainant, they did not restore the services. Complainant further made requests to OP-2 to restore the cable facility to his connections, but all in vain. Then, complainant served legal notice dt 6.12.2016, wherein again requested them to restore the cable connections and refund the excess amount charged by OP-2 to complainant. OP-1 did not bother to give reply. OP-2 replied the notice wherein he has concocted a false story of three cable connections. It is further submitted that there were no three connection, rather there were only two connection and OPs were charging excess amount for their services and they illegally and unlawfully disconnected the cable connections of complainant without any reason and despite repeated requests by complainant, did not restore the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                         The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 21.02.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                       Notice containing copy of complaint and relevant documents was issued to OP-1, but same has not been received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Case has been called out many times but despite repeated calls, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 either in person or through counsel on the date fixed, therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dt 4.05.2017.   

5                                              OP-2 appeared in person and filed reply wherein took preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable as complainant himself did not pay the proper connection fee and an amount of Rs.4,620/- is still due and recoverable towards him and when answering OP approached him for payment of remaining amount, complainant refused to pay the same and thus, connection of complainant was disconnected by OP-2 on 21.10.2016. complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. He has falsely dragged OP-2 in present litigation and has filed this complaint with malafide intention to spoil the image of answering OP. Complainant himself is defaulter of making payment of Op and has filed the present complaint to gain undue advantage.  it is asserted that on 24.03.2014, complainant took two cable connections bearing Sr. No.08803920091B and 24767D6AAA45 from OPs and out of two one having sr. No.  24767D6AAA45 was returned on 10.08.2016 due to some technical defect. On 21.05.2014 on demand of complainant, another set up box having sr. No. 0880392114A4 was installed. On 12.08.2016, set up box having serial no. 0880392978FB was installed by way of exchange. In 2014, Rs.620/- i.e rent for first, second and third for Rs.260/- 180/- and 180/-was due respectively, in June 2015, it increased to Rs.680/- i.e  Rs.270/-, 205/- and 205/-for first, second and third connection. Complainant paid Rs.500/- and said that he would pay the remaining amount later on. In May 2014 to May 2015, he was in default of Rs1560/-, from June 2015 to October 2016 for Rs.3060/- and till date amount due and recoverable from complainant is Rs.4,620/-. Despite repeated requests, complainant has not made payment of this amount and thus, on 21.10.2016, Op-2 disconnected the two connections for set up boxes no. No.08803920091B and 0880392114A4 and third connection is still running at his premises, but till now, he has not made payment for his connections. He has prayed for seeking directions to complainant to make payment of Rs.4620/-. However, on merits, he has taken same pleadings as in preliminary objections and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                    The complainant tendered in Ex parte evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 10 and then, closed his evidence.

7                                                         OP-2 himself tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-2/1 and then, closed the same.

8                                                        Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally contended that complainant got installed two cable connections from OPs at his premises and OPs were charging Rs.500/-per month for these connections. It came to the notice of complainant that actual rates fixed by OP-1 are Rs.270/- for 1^st set up box and Rs.205/-for 2^nd set up box, but OP-2 was illegally charging Rs.500/-for these connections and thus, every month he was charging excess amount from complainant. Complainant requested OP-2 to not to charge excess amount, but he did not pay any heed to his requests. Thereafter, complainant complained the matter to OP-1 through his mobile phone and reported this wrong act of OP-2 of charging excess amount than prescribed rates from complainant, but OP-1 also did not pay any heed to his request and did not take any action. Thereafter, on 21.10.2016, OPs illegally disconnected the cable connection of complainant and despite repeated requests made by complainant, they did not restore the services. Complainant further made requests to OP-2 to restore the cable facility to his connections, but all in vain. Then, complainant served legal notice dt 6.12.2016, wherein again requested them to restore the cable connections and refund the excess amount charged by OP-2 to complainant. OP-1 did not bother to give reply. OP-2 replied the notice wherein he has concocted a false story of three cable connections. It is further submitted that there were no three connection, rather there were only two connection and OPs were charging excess amount for their services and they illegally and unlawfully disconnected the cable connections of complainant without any reason and despite repeated requests by complainant, did not restore the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation. Complainant has stressed on documents Ex C-1 to 10.

9                                                       To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP-2 argued before the Forum that present complaint is not maintainable as complainant himself did not pay the proper connection fee and an amount of Rs.4,620/- is still due and recoverable towards him and when answering OP approached him for payment of remaining amount, complainant refused to pay the same and thus, connection of complainant was disconnected by OP-2 on 21.10.2016. complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Forum. He has falsely dragged OP-2 in present litigation and has filed this complaint with malafide intention to spoil the image of answering OP. Complainant himself is defaulter of making payment of Op and has filed the present complaint to gain undue advantage.  it is asserted that on 24.03.2014, complainant took two cable connections bearing Sr. No.08803920091B and 24767D6AAA45 from OPs and out of two one having sr. No.  24767D6AAA45 was returned on 10.08.2016 due to some technical defect. On 21.05.2014 on demand of complainant, another set up box having sr. No. 0880392114A4 was installed. On 12.08.2016, set up box having serial no. 0880392978FB was installed by way of exchange. In 2014, Rs.620/- i.e rent for first, second and third for Rs.260/- 180/- and 180/-was due respectively, in June 2015, it increased to Rs.680/- i.e  Rs.270/-, 205/- and 205/-for first, second and third connection. Complainant paid Rs.500/- and said that he would pay the remaining amount later on. In May 2014 to May 2015, he was in default of Rs1560/-, from June 2015 to October 2016 for Rs.3060/- and till date amount due and recoverable from complainant is Rs.4,620/-. Despite repeated requests, complainant has not made payment of this amount and thus, on 21.10.2016, Op-2 disconnected the two connections for set up boxes no. No.08803920091B and 0880392114A4 and third connection is still running at his premises, but till now, he has not made payment for his connections. He has prayed for seeking directions to complainant to make payment of Rs.4,620 and also prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                                              We have heard the arguments addressed by ld counsel for complainant as well as OP-2 and have also carefully gone through the record available on the file.

11                                                 After careful perusal of record placed on file and from the careful examination of document Ex C-2, which is a receipt no. dt 7.08.2016 issued by Ops for Rs.500/-, it is clear that complainant made payment of Rs.500/-to Ops. On the face of it, this document gives strength to the pleading of complainant that he paid the amount of Rs.500/- to Ops to avail their services for cable connection. It proves that complainant is the consumer of OPs and he was having two connections as OPs were charging this amount for two connections and not from three connections. Complainant paid this amount to OPs for one full month for availing their services pertaining to transmission of programmes. When it came to the notice of complainant that OP-2 was charging excess amount from him, he made repeated requests to OPs to refund the excess charged amount and to charges as per prescribed rates, OPs did not hear his requests. Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance. Legal notice Ex C-4, reply given by OP-2 and rejoinder issued by complainant also prove the pleadings of complainant. These documents are cogent evidence, authenticity of which can not be ignored and  it is proved that OPs failed to redress the grievance of complainant. The only defence taken by OP-2 is that that three cable connections were running in the premises of complainant instead of two cable connections as pleaded by him and he was paying only Rs.500/-, which is very less than the actual rates prescribed under the schedule for cable services and he is in default of not making payment to them, but OP-2 failed to prove that there were ever running three cable connections in the premises of complainant. It proves that Ops have been deficient in services and they did not provide services as per rules. Act of Ops in not paying heed to the requests of complainant and even to the notice issued by this Forum amounts to trade mal practice on their part. All this proves that Ops have caused great harassment to complainant by charging excess amount for services and by disconnecting the cable facility to his connections. All this caused harassment and mental tension to complainant, which entitles him for compensation and litigation expenses.

12                                             From the careful perusal of the record and in view of documents placed on file, this Forum is fully convinced with the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and is of considered opinion that OPs have been deficient in services and there is trade mal practice on the part of OPs in not restoring the cable connection of complainant. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. OPs are directed to restore the cable connection of complainant and to receive the charges as per scheduled rate and in case the complainant is not ready to get restored the cable connection services, then in that case, Ops are directed to refund the security amount as received by them regarding set up boxes on return of set up boxes by complainant to them. OPs are further directed to pay Rs.3000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. OPs are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 11.08.2017

                                               Member                              President

                 (P Singla)                          (Ajit Aggarwal)