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
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 18 day of June, 2004
C.D.No.28/2003
The Mourya Inn,
An enterprise of T.G.V.
Projects and Investments Pvt Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
MR C. Satyanarayana,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his
Counsel Sri A.Siva Ramaiah
-Vs-
M/s. Mahalakshmi Communications,
43/253-1-2, N.R.Peta,
Rep. by its Managing Partner,
Mr. K.E.Divakar, Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri T. Siva Kumar
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under Sec.12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to restore the cable connection to the complainant as well as its annexure i.e D.No. 43/262, N.R. Peta, New Sankalbagh, Kurnool, RS.3,00,000/- towards compensation for suffering and loss and costs, and any other reliefs which the complainant is remaining entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint of the complainant is that the complainant is a three star Hotel, The Mourya Inn, which is an enterprise of T.G.V Projects and Investments (P) Ltd, situated at Baghya Nagar in Kurnool. The opposite party is a partner ship firm having Cable T.V Network system and is Cable operator engaged in providing Cable services to its subscriber to view the programs in the Televisions at Kurnool. The complainant’s Hotel is provided with Colours T.Vs to facilitate good entertainment to the occupants of its rooms, the said Colours T.Vs are provided with Cable connection from the opposite parties from April 2000 and continued till the dis-connection by the opposite party on 9.1.2003. The said dis-connection on 9.1.2003 was made without any intimation or prior notice to the complainant. The complainant on 3.2.2003 through its letter requested the Opposite parties to restore the said Cable connection but the opposite party did not restore the same.
3. The complainant further says that the opposite party use to issue bills once in six months for a lumpsum amount and complainant paid the same regularly. The complainant paid an amount of RS.12,000/- by way of pay order No. 419113 Dt 3.2.2003 drawn on Indian Bank, Kurnool towards the Cable connection charges from 1.10.2002 to 31.3.2003. Even after payment of the said amount the opposite party disconnected cable service connection to the complainant’s Hotel and its annexure, which amounts to deficiency of service to the complainant. The complainant in the said circumstances has no other way except, to seek redressal in this Forum, has filed this complaint.
4. In substatiation of its case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) letter dt 3.2.2003 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party (2) Xerox copy of consignment acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex A.1 by the opposite party (3) invoice dt 21.10.2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant (4) Letter dt 27.2.2002 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant and (5) payment details of opposite party from April 2000 to Sep 2002 and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to Ex A.5 for its appreciation in this case besides to its sworn affidavit in re-iteration of its complaint averments as evidence.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this forum of this case of the complainant, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed its written version (objection statement) denying the complaint besides questioning its maintainability either in law or on facts. The opposite party alleges that the complainant does not come with in the purview of Consumer Protection Act under Sec. 2d, as alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties was connected with commercial nature. Hence the complainant doesn’t come under the definition of Consumer. As the complainant re transmitted the cable connection, it comes under Cable service and should be registered under sec. 3 of Cable Television Net works (regulation), so the complainant is not either a Consumer or a subscriber, hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
6. It further submits that there was no intimation or information regarding the disconnection of cable connection to the complainant’s Hotel and its annexure before to the letter of complainant dated 3.2.2003 vide Ex.A.1 and no request by the complainant for restoration before to Ex.A.1.
7. It further submits that the sister concern of the complainant started a rival cable Network called ‘T.G.V. Net work, hence there cannot be two rival cable connections for the same premises. The said cable service connection was started by the complainant in order to defame, degrade and damage the reputation of opposite party cable service. Hence there is no bonafide reason for the complainant seeking restoration of cable connection to the complainant’s Hotel and its annexure and seeks for the dismissal of complainant with exemplary costs.
8. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on its sworn-affidavit in re-iteration of its written version as evidence.
9. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party;?
10. The Ex A.1 is the letter dt 3.2.2003 of the complainant to the opposite party referring to dis-connection of cable operations to his hotel and its annexure at D.No. 43/262, New Sankalbagh, N.R. Peta, Kurnool. It further says that the amount for cable TV connection was paid up to September, 2002 and they are enclosing a pay order No. 419113 dt 3.2.2003 for Rs.12,000/- towards payment for cable TV connection from October 2002 to March, 2003 and requests the opposite party to restore the cable T.V. connection immediately. The above letter under Ex A.1 was sent to opposite party under courier services vide Ex A.2. But as against to it the written version of the opposite party in its averments alleges that the said Ex A.1 was received by it but as it did not accept it, it was returned to the complainant and further says there was no prior intimation by the complainant as to the dis-connection of cable TV connection to his hotel and to its annexure. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite party and as in the Ex A.1 the complainant stated that his cable TV connection was dis-connected, in view of Ex A.2 it is clear that the complainant has sent the said Ex A.1 under Ex A.2, subsequent to the sending of Ex A.1 the said statement of the opposite party on this aspects not only remain highly in consistence, but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafides of the opposite party in that regard. Therefore what follows is that the said Ex A.1 was received by the opposite party and no necessary action was taken by the opposite party to restore the cable TV connection to the complainant’s hotel and its annexure and hence there appears every bonafides of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and the deficiency of service on the side of the opposite party in that regard.
11. The Ex A.3 is the invoice dt 21.10.2002 issued by the opposite party to the complainant, for payment of RS,12,000/-, the said amount was paid for cable TV connection to the complainant’s hotel for the period from April,2002 to September,2002, i.e for 6 months, RS.2,000/- per month, totaling RS.,12,000/- from the facts borne in the above exhibits, it is clear that there is no custom prevailed between the parties regarding the payment of amount for cable TV connection.
12.The Ex A.4 is the letter dt 27.2.2002 addressed by opposite party to the complainant showing the payment particulars of cable TV connection by the complainant to the opposite party. The Ex A.5 is the payment details of cable TV connection by the complainant to the opposite party from April 2000 to June 2002.
13.Further from the contends of Ex A.1, letter dt 3.2.2003 addressed by the complainant to the complainant to the opposite party, where in the complainant intimated the opposite party that cable connection to its hotel and to its annexure has been disconnected and requested to restore the same by paying cable TV connection charges up to March, 2003, in View of Ex A.2 it is clear that the opposite party has received the said Ex A.1 but the opposite party taking lame excuses that it had received the said exhibit, but returned it as it did not accept the said Ex A.1. All the above material placed by the complainant indicates in uni-tone that the opposite party having received the Ex A.1 did not bother to restore cable TV connection to the complainant’s hotel and its annexure. Hence there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party side towards the complainant right from the date of dis-connection of cable TV connection to the complainant hotel and its annexure.
14.Now the only point remained for consideration is that whether the complainant is a Consumer or not. The opposite party alleges that the complainant is not a Consumer as the transaction between the parties was purely commercial in nature as per the decision of National Commission in India, Export Corporation and others Vs Chairman cum Managing Director Syndicate Bank and others reported in 2004 CTJ 22 (CP) where in the complaint was dismissed as the allegation of deficiency of service related to a commercial activity, since excluded from the purview of the Act with effect from 15.3.2003. The decision submitted by the complainant, of the National Commission, in Gulab Industries Pvt Ltd Vs M/s RNG Suiting Limited reported in 2004 (2) ALT 17 (NC), wherein it was held, the jurisdiction of Commission is not ousted by rendering of services even for commercial purpose, only in respect of goods such a bar on jurisdiction existed. In the light of the above position of Law, the decision reported by opposite party has little relevancy for its appreciation in this case, as the said decision is vague as to adoptation of amendment effect for deficiency of service, said to have been occurred in the period prior to amendment.
15. Hence in the circumstances discussed above and in the light of the above decision of National Commission, before the amendment to the Consumer protection Act, rendering services even for commercial purpose had not been ousted from the jurisdiction of the Forums. It was only in respect of goods such a bar on jurisdiction existed. In the present case as per material on record the cable TV connection was provided to the complainant’s Hotel by the opposite party what the opposite party was rendering was only a ‘service’. Hence it is a clear case of rendering service and as per definition of Consumer as defined in 2 (1) (d) (ii), the complainant is very much a Consumer, hence there is clear deficiency of service by the opposite party to the complainant in not restoring cable TV connection to the complainant’s Hotel and to its annexure.
16.Thus, the complainant is certainly remaining entitled for the restoration of cable T.V. connection and also for compensation for suffering and mental agony, he faced at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite party to the complainant and the damages suffered for the deficiency of service of the opposite party and the loss suffered by the complainant is indemiifiable. The complainant claiming sum of RS. 3.00.000/- as compensation but did not place any material justifying the same, hence in the above said circumstances the complainant’s is entitleness to RS.2,00,000/- is just and reasonable as compensation in this case.
17. Therefore, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay RS.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of this petition till realization towards compensation for damage and mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service by the opposite party and RS.10,000/- as costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order and the connection restored vide Order in I.A.No.163/2003 dated 25.3.2003 are made absolute, subject to the complainant not remaining default of the periodical schedule rents for continuation of cable T.V. connection.
Dictated to the stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, Pronounced in the Open court this the 18th day of June, 2004
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
