BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
and
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 22nd day of August, 2007
C.C. No.181/2006
Smt. B. Sarojamma, W/o. B. Eswar Reddy, Ruchitha Network,
Cable Operator, H.No.2-343, Kolumulapalli Village, Behemcherla Mandal,
Kurnool District.
..COMPLAINANT
Verses
Managing Director, M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited,
ETV networks, Ramoji Film City, Hyderabad - 501512.
… OPPOSITE PARTY
This complaint coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool, for complainant, and Sri.N. Nanda Kishore, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party upon the persuing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
C.C.No.181-2006
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on opposite party to allot Decoders for E.TV and E.TV.2 to the complainant, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.3,000/- towards costs of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is the proprietor of Ruchitha Net Work, a Cable Operator, Kolumulapalli Village, Kurnool District, and supplying Cable Net Work to nearly 50 houses. The complainant on seeing an advertisement in telugu news paper applied for E.TV and E.TV.2 decoders by paying Rs.11,000/- by way of Demand Draft along with an application and the said amount was received by opposite party on 3.12.2005. The staff of opposite party inspected the village on 10.1.2006, but even after lapse of 3 months the opposite party did not allot Decoders to the complainant. Inspite of several letters there was no response from the opposite parties for allotment of decoders, being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated 18.5.2006, even to this legal notice there was no reply. Due to the negligent attitude of opposite parties the complainant resorted to the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) office copy of application dated 26.11.2005 of the complainant to opposite party,(2) Xerox copy of Demand Draft dated 26.11.2005 for Rs.11,000/- in favour of opposite party, (3) letter dated 3.12.2005 addressed to the complainant as to the receipt of Demand Draft for Rs.11,000/- towards E.TV and E.TV.2 Decoders, (4)office copy of legal notice dated 18.5.2006,(5) proforma application to net work cable operators given in Eenadu paper on 31.7.2005,(6) postal receipt bearing No.2912 dated 18.5.2006 for sending Ex.A4 and (7)postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A4 by opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A7 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite party and replied to the interrogatories of opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version
5. The written version of opposite parties submit that it is M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, represented by its Managing Director is the proper party to the complaint and not the Managing Director, M/S. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited and also submit that any deposit relating to the supply of signals shall be preferred only to T.D.S.A.T. (Telecom Dispute Settlement Appellate Tribunal) and the complainant should have approached T.D.S.A.T for her grievances and not to the forum. It further submits that the complainant is not entitled to receive a Decoder but can obtain the signals of E.TV and E.TV2 of this opposite party from the Authorized Distributor/Agent namely Renuka Cable Net Work, Kolumulapalli Village, and the complainant never approached this authorized agent to obtain signals of E.TV and E.T.V.2, but approached the Honourable Forum. It also submits that the complainant, a cable net work operator and by no stretch of imagination can come within the definition of consumer as per C.P.Act, as the complainant’s activity is admittedly commercial doing business by supply decoded signals from the received channels to various viewers by collecting monthly subscriptions from them. The cable net work operator is always a licenser to decoders and sim cards and the channel producers are licensers. As per TRAI Rules, any dispute or grievance could be hesitated before TRAI only, and lastly submits that the amount of Rs.11,000/- received from the complainant was returned with 15% interest and the complainant refused to receive and the same was sent under a covering letter dated 23.12.2006 by Registered Post acknowledgement due and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complaint is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
7. It is the case of the complainant that she paid Rs.11,000/- vide Ex.A2 and applied for Decoders of E.TV and E.TV.2 from Opposite party vide Ex.A1.The opposite party after receipt of said amount vide Ex.A3, did not allot decoders to the complainant inspite of several representations and legal notice dated 18.5.2006 vide Ex.A4. The opposite party in their written version alleged that the complainant admittedly has been supplying decoded signals received from various telecaster to various viewers by collecting monthly subscriptions. Hence the complainant is not a consumer as per C.P.Act. In the complaint, INTER – ALIA , the complainant alleges that to eke her lively hood she started Ruchitha Cable Network and applied for decoders of E.TV and E.TV.2. Hence, as per explanation to Section 2 d (ii), the complainant is a consumer and can file a complaint before the Forum.
8. The second contention is that the opposite party inspite of receipt of Rs.11,000/-towards decoders did not choose to supply decoders and there was no response to the representations and legal notice. But on the other side the opposite party submits that it has returned the amount of Rs.11,000/- with 15% interest pending juris of the case by Registered Post and the complainant admits the receipt of said amount but submits that she has returned the said amount. In support of said contention no material was placed on record by the complainant as to the return of said amount and it is for the complainant to prove that she has returned the said amount, but in this case the complainant failed to prove the said aspect. Hence, what remains clear is that the opposite party admittedly has returned said amount of Rs.11,000/- to the complainant by Registered Post and it was admittedly received by the complainant and it was not proved by the complainant that she returned the said amount to the opposite party. Hence, when the said amount is received by the complainant with interest she is not remaining entitle for allotment of decoders by opposite party.
9. To sum up, the above discussion, the opposite party returned the amount of Rs.11,000/-with 15% interest pending juris of this case and the complainant received the said amount. There was no response to the representations of the complainant and even to the legal notice after the receipt of said amount by the opposite party, hence it shows the lethargic attitude of opposite party towards the complainant, to compensate the opposite party has to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental agony. As the complainant received the said amount she is not remaining entitled for allotment of decoders. The opposite parties by their conduct driven the complainant to the Forum for reliefs, the complainant is remaining entitled to cost of Rs. 500/-.
10. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- as costs towards compensation for mental agony within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 9% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 22nd day of August, 2007.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Office copy of the application dated 26.11.2005 of the
Complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A2 Xerox copy of demand draft dated 26.11.2005 for Rs.11,000/-
In favour of opposite party.
Ex.A3. Letter, dated 3.12.2005 addressed to the complainant as
To receipt of Demand Draft for Rs.11,000/- towards
ETV & ETV-2 decoders.
Ex.A4. Office copy of legal notice, dated 18.5.206 caused to
Opposite party.
Ex.A5. The proforma application to network cable operator
Given in Eenadu News paper on 31.7.2005.
Ex.A6. Postal receipt No.2912 dated 18.5.2006.
Ex.A7. Postal acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties; NIL
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri.N. Nanda Kirshore, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties
