DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.287/2014
Sh. Ashok Kumar
R/o I-2nd 93, Madan Gir,
New Delhi-110062 ….Complainant
Versus
Pardeep Shakla Cable
I-IInd, 234 Madan Gir,
New Delhi-110062 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 24.07.14 Date of Order : 12.05.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
In short, the case of the Complainant is that he purchased a set top box of DEN Company bearing Sr. No.000021132741 from OP. He was paying regularly monthly charges of Rs.150/- per month to the OP. The OP increased the monthly charges from Rs.150/- to Rs.220/- per month without intimation to the Complainant. The Complainant asked the OP for showing the increased monthly charges and also to provide the bill. The Complainant has alleged that OP denied to provide the increased rate list and bill also. The Complainant further alleges that the OP has disconnected the cable network connection after paying monthly charges without intimation and refused to connect the cable network. Aggrieved by the conduct of the OP, the Complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OP to connect the cable net connection immediately.
- Direct the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for harassment, inconvenience, frustration and mental agony suffered by the Complainant alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
OP in the written statement has denied the allegations on the ground that the Complainant never took any cable connection from the OP or paid monthly charges of Rs.150/- per month to the OP or that the cable connection was disconnected. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence inter-alia relying upon Ex.CW/1 which is the extract of the internet printout regarding monthly charges of DEN Company. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Sankla, Authorized Cable Operator of DEN Company has been filed in evidence stating inter-alia that “the Complainant has not provided any receipt/ bill of cable connection to prove user of the cable services. The witness of OP has also relied upon rate list of DEN Company (Copy of which is Ex. OP1/1).
We have heard the Counsel for Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Now we straightaway come to the question whether the complaint is maintainable and, if so, the relief prayed is admissible or not?
Admittedly, the Complainant has not attached any bill in support of his claim. However, the Complainant has raised one of the issues in his complaint that “the Complainant asked the OP for showing the increased monthly charges rate list and also to provide the bill”. On the other hand, OP in order to deny existence of any relationship with the Complainant should have come out with the concrete proof as to whom the Den Set up box bearing serial No 000021132741 was issued. Had there been honest intention on the part of OP, this point would have been unflinchingly exhibited by him. We would also point out that spurious business of conducting cable connection without issue of cash receipt is quite rampant to evade the legal accountability. Therefore, any honest business agency would always come out with ample proof of issuing cash receipt to other subscribers so as to maintain its stand of doing upright business but we do not find this in the instant case. The other most important circumstantial evidence is evinced from the averments made by the OP in his affidavit that “the Complainant has not provided any receipt/ bill of cable connection to prove user of the cable services.” Therefore, we are inclined to draw adverse inference from the aforesaid statement that the OP has taken shelter of not issuing the receipt to its client as a pre-formed strategy to circumvent the legal consequences arising from such dicey deals.
Though the Complainant should not have indulged into any relationship with such vested parties but paradoxically the users of the services accept such practices/condition in haste and avail the services pertaining to the entertainment and arise to make complaint only when the services are defective or discontinued by the vested agencies.
On 14.09.15 it was admitted on behalf of the OP that OP is the only Cable Operator for the area in question which provides cable connection of DEN. Thus, this fact fortifies the averments made by the Complainant that the connection in question at his residence was provided by the OP and none else.
In view of above discussion, we hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service, allow the complaint and direct the OP to restore the cable connection of the Complainant after taking the appropriate charges as fixed by the Regulators as evident from the internet printout (if the Complainant so desires). We also direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the Complainant including cost of litigation to the Complainant.
The order shall be complied within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order failing which OP shall become liable to pay interest @ Rs. 6% per annum on the amount of Rs.5000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 12.05.16.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
