Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/91/07

MR P B KANNAIAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SRI SAI NATH CABLE AND SATELLITE T V SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

M/S V GOURI SANKARA RAO

10 Nov 2009

ORDER

 
First Appeal No. FA/91/07
(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. - of District Visakhapatnam-II)
 
1. MR P B KANNAIAH
R/O H NO 16-1-137 3RD LANE MARKET AREA PALVONCHA TOWN AND MANDAL KHAMMAM
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

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.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.