IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 05th day of October, 2020
Filed on 11.06.2018
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.153/2018
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.Sreenath.K.M 1. Nedumudi Cable Vision
Kadaykkattu madam Pooppally, Ponga.P.O.
Attuvathala, Kuttanadu, Alappuzha -688503
Nedumudi-688503 (Adv. K.V.Subhakumar)
(Adv.Sudeep.V.Nair)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
The brief facts of the complainant are as follows:-
The complainant is a subscriber of opposite party for a period of 15 years. He had paid the subscription amount on each month or in advance. Opposite party had not issued receipt for the payment. Complainant had paid the subscription in advance till November 2018. On 24/11/2015 the opposite party had installed set top box to the residence of the complainant by receiving Rs.2000/- as security deposit and made believe that they will replace the said set top box if any defect occurred to it and also will return the security amount whenever the complainant wished to discontinue the cable connection.
On 4/5/2018 the set top box was stopped its functioning and on 6/5/2018 the said equipment returned to the opposite party and the same was acknowledged by the staff of the opposite party and issued its receipt. But the opposite party informed that there was no stock of set top box for replacing it. Since it was not replaced by new one the complainant obtained a set top box on rental basis. Thereafter the complainant had enquired the matter on phone and directly, but the opposite party did not responded and lagging with lame excuses. The complainant opined that the service of the opposite party was not satisfactory to a major part of its customers. Complainant need not want the service of the opposite party further and therefore the complainant filed this complaint seeking Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as security paid for set top box, balance amount from the advance amount received as subscription and compensation for loss of money.
2. The proprietor of opposite party institution resisted the complaint by following contentions:-
The opposite party institution Nedumudi Cable Vision is running by Mr. Aji. The complainant subscribed a connection from opposite party about 3 years back. The opposite party had given receipts to the amount being received from the complainant. The opposite party had also given rent receipt card to its subscribers and the same issued to the complainant is produced along with the complaint. The complainant gave seven months rent of Rs.1,260(One thousand two hundred and sixty only) in November and it was the subscription for May 2018 to November 2018. The same is revealed in the said document and besides that the opposite party had also given receipts to the said amount. The statement that the complainant had given subscription in advance is false. The opposite party had not received the amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as security on 24/11/2015. The opposite party had cured the defects of the set top box when it was defected. The opposite party had not agreed to refund the cost of set top box when the connection was discontinued by the complainant and it is not amenable. Nothing said the opposite party’s staff about the stock of set top box and its replacement to the complainant. The complainant’s set top box was rectified when it was defected.
The document produced by the complainant as Ext.A2 is not issued by the staff of the opposite party or from his office. The statement that the complainant has using the set top box in daily rent is false and nowhere available the Set Top Box(STB) in rent. The subscribers have no complaint regarding the service of the opposite party. This complaint has been filed by the instigation of other cable TV operators by the complaint without any bonafides. The complainant has no right to seek any amount from the opposite party. Since there is no loss sustained the complainant by the acts of the opposite party, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
3. In the view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and Costs?
4. Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 and A2 documents. Evidence on the part of the opposite party consists oral evidence of RW1. Heard both sides.
5. Point No.1 and 2:-
As authorized by the complainant father of the complainant filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and examined as PW1 and Marked Ext.A1 and A2. Proprietor of opposite party Nedumudi Cable Vision filed affidavit in tune with their version. It is admitted that the complainant is a subscriber of opposite party. But the period of subscription was disputed. PW1 deposed that the complainant had taken connection from the opposite party for the last 15 years. But when the opposite party’s counsel put a suggestion that the complainant got connection in 2018 onwards and it was denied by PW1. If there was a connection before 2018 there would have any receipts for rent or rent subscription card like Ext.A1 in the custody of the complainant. Ext.A1 would show that the subscription for cable connection noted as received from May,2018 to November 2018. PW1 also deposed that an amount of Rs. 1,260/-(One thousand two hundred and sixty only) had paid by the complainant to the opposite party for advance subscription. Thereafter PW1 admitted that the amount was paid 1st of May,2018 and in another question he answered the amount was paid in November 2018. It is pertinent to note that the complainant averred in the complaint and in the deposition of PW1 that the opposite party had received an amount of Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as security for the set top box installed by them, but no documents before us to reiterate the same.
Regarding Ext.A2 the opposite party totally denied its authenticity in the pleadings as well as in evidence. When RW1 was cross examined, PW1 put a question that “ Set Top Box XncnsI X¶t¸mÄ AXv hm§nbXmbn H¸n«p X¶Xv \n§fpsS Poh\¡mcnbmsW¶v ]dbp¶p. (Q) icnbÃ.(A)”.
Moreover on a plain reading of Ext.A2, nothing revealed from the said document with the relation of opposite party and the said person. Normally the set top box used by each customer his own account and the link in the TV controlled by the set top box installed for that particular account. In such a situation the set top box used by the complainant in a daily rent basis is unbelievable. On the other hand the complainant should have proved it with cogent evidence. The opposite party’s counsel vehemently argued that the complaint is only a net result of the competition between the other cable net work agencies. The complainant also admitted in hearing that there are other cable network agencies also available in the locality. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case we accept the said arguments of the opposite party. In the above circumstances we have no hesitation to hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such these are found against the complaint.
6. Point No.3:-
In the result complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 05 th day of October, 2020.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R (Member)
Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Eswaran Namboothiri(Witness)
Ext.A1 - Rent Receipt card.
Ext.A2 - Set Top Box repairing receipt.6/5/2018.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Aji (Witness)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
