A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD
F.A. 91/2007 against C.C. 45/2006, Dist. Forum, Khammam
Between:
P. B. Kannaiah, S/o. Late Ramaiah
Part-time Junior Lecturer
H.No. 16-1-137, 3rd Lane Market Area
Palvoncha Town & Mandal
Khammam Dist. *** Appellant/
Complainant And
M/s. Sri Sai Nath Cable & Satellite
T.V. Services C/o. Santosh Electronics
Massed Complex
Sastry Road, Palvoncha
Rep. by its Proprietor
Y. Ramana Murthy Naidu. *** Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Resp: M/s. Srinivasa Srikanth.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THIS THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND NINE
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
****
1) This is an appeal preferred by the complainant against the order of the Dist. Forum declining to grant compensation while allowing the complaint in part.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a colour T.V. on 10.10.2005 and obtained cable connection from respondent on 20.10.2005. However he was not getting proper connectivity as such he complained to the R.D.O., Palvoncha along with his neighbours. Bearing grudge, he disconnected the cable connection threatening with dire consequences if report is made. On that he gave report to the police. Due to disconnection he and his family members had lost the facility of entertainment and therefore claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh, and for a direction to restore cable connection, and not to disconnect in future.
3) The respondent resisted the case. While denying each and every averment made in the complaint, he alleged that it had been providing cable service to 400 to 500 householders to their satisfaction without any complaint. The complainant became a defaulter and despite many a demand he did not pay and unnecessarily gave a report against him. He gave illegal connection to his tenant Sri Kodumuri Kishore and after coming to know of it he disconnected the cable connection. He sent his boys to give reconnection but the complainant objected for their entry and claimed compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. In fact he not only did not pay the amount but insisted other customers not to pay. Therefore he sustained huge loss. The complainant was still due an amount of Rs. 1,500/-. There was no deficiency in service on his part. The complainant did not sustain any loss or damage and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and filed documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that there was personal rivalry between the parties and in the light of the fact that admittedly the respondent has disconnected the cable facility, directed him to give cable connection, while equally directing the complainant to pay the monthly bills regularly but no compensation was awarded in the above circumstances.
6) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It ought to have awarded compensation for mental agony for having disconnected the cable facility without any reason. He was a Junior Lecturer by profession, and he was denied various channels which air Science & Technology, General Knowledge etc.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for the disconnection made by the respondent?
8) It is an undisputed fact that the respondent is running a cable service to several householders. It is also not in dispute that the complainant a Junior Lecturer is also having a cable connection. When the respondent disconnected the service which according to it for non-payment of the amount, the complainant approached the R.D.O. Palvoncha for restoration of his connection. The respondent gave his version alleging that due to disputes between them, the complainant started campaigning with other householders, not to pay the bill, and in the process he suffered huge loss. The R.D.O. Palvancha directed restoration of connection and issued show cause notice on 19.5.2006 for not complying the order of reconnection given by him on 19.4.2006. The complainant alleges in his complaint that the matter is still pending. The respondent gave a lawyer notice on 23.6.2006 to the complainant alleging that he did not pay monthly subscription bill, and insisting a free cable connection and was threatening him with dire consequences and therefore sought damages to a tune of Rs. 2 lakhs for the loss of business. The complainant filed the complaint on 22.4.2006 whereas the respondent got issued legal notice Dt. 23.6.2006 claiming Rs. 2 lakhs towards damages.
9) The complainant alleges that his cable connection was discontinued when he complained that he was not getting proper signals. The respondent alleges that the complainant committed default in payment of dues, and as such he disconnected. In the circumstances the complainant ought to have proved that he was regular in paying the amount and that it was the respondent that was not giving satisfactory service. Evidently there was dispute between the complainant and the respondent in this regard. The complainant reported the matter to R.D.O. Palvoncha who directed the respondent to restore the cable connection, and when he did not do so, he again issued show cause notice. While the matter was pending before the R.D.O, Palvoncha, he came up with this complaint despite the fact that the R.D.O. directed the respondent to restore cable connection. The respondent in order to prove that there was a dispute between him and the complainant filed the affidavit evidence of M. Mallikarjuna Rao and K. Srinivasa Rao the neighbours. They stated that when they visited the house of the complainant in order to restore the cable connection by virtue of orders of Dist. Forum Dt. 12.9.2006 he did not allow them to give cable connection. He also threatened action against them by making them rounds to various courts. The complainant in his grounds of appeal at para ‘K’ explained by stating that “the opposite party to cover up the lapses have filed the so called third party affidavits with fabricated signatures stating that they have come forward for giving the connection and the complainant refused. As a matter of fact, the opposite party never comes forward for providing connection and the affidavit of Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao is a rivalry affidavit to deprive the complainant from the cable T.V. connection. The complainant having some disputes with the said Mr. Mallikarjuna Rao and taking advantage of the same the opposite party got the affidavit of the said person and the other third party affidavits filed by the opposite party is only with the fabricated signatures. “
10) The complainant ought to have expatiated the nature of disputes with those persons. If really the respondent did not restore cable connection he could have taken a Commissioner to show that the cable connection was not restored. He could have proved that the said order was not complied. Mere assertions in cases of this nature will not suffice more so when the respondent equally by filing his affidavit evidence and others affidavits refuted the allegations. The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record rightly directed the respondent to reconnect the cable connection and at the same time directed the complainant to pay monthly charges. Unless the complainant proves that the disconnection was illegally made and that he was paying charges regularly, the question of granting compensation will not arise. He could not prove his bonafidies in order to get compensation. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
11) In the result the appeal is dismissed, however, no costs.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 10.11.2009.
*pnr
“CORRECTED – O.K.”
