This case has been filed U/s. 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant. In a nutshell complainant’s case is that present complainant along with his other partners, namely, Raja Chaterjee, Sri Kajol Singha and Sri Goutam Santra started a business under the name and style “Snehamita Service Proprietor” for the purpose of providing cable lines since 24.12.2013 and the place of business is within some area of Chandannagore Police station (names of the areas mentioned in the petition of complainant). They were unemployed and to start business they arranged four hundred numbers set top boxes. Later on Raja Chaterjee being the director put his signature on 16.8.2014 in a “no objection paper” and the present complainant with such “no objection paper” of his own started a business before 13.5.2016 under the name and style “Mrs. Siti Cable Network” after making a contract with “Mrs. Siti Cable Network Limited” (B-10, Ashel House, Lorence Road Industrial Area, New Delhi).
Complainant was facing loss because of his financial condition and the partners of Bhalobasa Cable Network creating problems for developing the business of complainant and as such under compelling circumstances complainant made a contract with opposite party no. 1 Sri Prabir Kumar De of Bhalobasa Cable Network on 6.8.2014 and it was settled that said business would run through the Bhalobasa Cable Network and the name of that business has been settled “Bhalobasa Cable Network” and they also mutually agreed to share their areas for the purpose of that business.
Complainant further alleged that on 6.8.2014 in that contract it was mentioned that ninety set top boxes those were run in the area of complainant would control by complainant and the forty seven set top boxes of complainant also to be handled by opposite party no. 1 and there were other terms and conditions in that contract. Complainant further alleged that opposite party no. 1 thereafter created problems and disturbances resulting which he suffered huge loss. It is further alleged by complainant that opposite party no. 1 inconnivance with opposite party no. 4 (Siti Network Limited) opposite party no. 1 started to influence opposite party no. 4 and opposite party no. 1 also started to grab the business of complainant. Complainant also states that opposite party no. 1 is an employee under complainant for maintenance of cable and he illegally joined another line with the main line of opposite party no. 4 and since 19.9.2017 opposite party no. 1 circulated his name in pamphlet putting his signature.
Complainant also states that opposite party no. 1, Sri Prabir Kumar De did illegal act after being influenced by opposite party no. 3, Sri Ashim Debnath. Then complainant gave legal notice, but because of illegal act of them complainants suffered loss.
Complainant further alleged that opposite party no. 1 inconnivance with opposite party nos. 3 and 4 only to grab the business of complainant created various problems and disturbances illegally.
Complainant also alleged that when complainant gave legal notice to them, prior to starting of world cup football opposite party no. 1 in connivance with opposite party no. 4 with a view to finish the business of complainant with the help of local public dismantle the house and room of the complainant and set fire thereat also and opposite party no. 1 with a view to finish the business of the complainant influenced opposite party no. 4 and managed to stop the allotted portal of complainant. Accordingly, the complainant’s set top boxes became inoperative resulting which the local people started insulting complainant. Accordingly, complainant visited the office of opposite party no. 4 only for the purpose of solution but failed. On 8.8.2018 when complainant met with opposite party no. 4, then opposite party no. 4 insisted complainant to make cancel the agreement. Again complainant gave legal notice. Accordingly, opposite party no. 4 called opposite party no. 1 at his office and opposite party no. 4 admitted the loss of complainant and also promised to make good the loss of the complainant.
The complainant has no other business save and except the said business for his earning to meet up his family expenses. Not only that the labourers of complainant were also going to lose their earning. Complainant further alleged that through e-mail on 9.6.2018 and 13.6.2018 inspite of informing the position to opposite party no. 4, the opposite party no. 4 did not start the allotted portal of complainant. It is also alleged by complainant that opposite party no. 1 also blocked the belongings/ articles of the complainant.
Complainant further alleged that on 26.7.2018 complainant gave legal notice, but opposite party no. 1 replied the same with incorrect facts and information.
Complainant also alleged that inspite of continuation of agreement of complainant with opposite party no. 4, opposite party no. 4 illegally stopped the allotted portal of complainant without his knowledge and continuing the cable line of opposite party no. 1 illegally.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party no. 4 so that opposite party no. 4 cannot distribute the set to box to opposite party no. 1.
Complainant has also prayed for direction upon opposite party no. 1 to return the articles to complainant as per schedule (kha) of the complaint.
Complainant has also prayed for a decree an amount of Rs. 2,44,525/- against opposite party no. 1 towards the amount of trade license, P&T, GST including power supply bills and the payments of labourers and for the expenses for office maintenance including other reliefs.
The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filled written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as levelled against them. These opposite parties submit that the wild allegations made against them by the complainant of drawing a nice picture by applying his maneuvering of arts and those are not at all correct and the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have denied the total allegations against them made by the complainant. Further it may be noted that the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 state that complainant cannot get any relief as per paragraph no. 2 of the complaint. It is specifically alleged by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that neither opposite party no. 1 nor opposite party 2 has any relation with complainant for his becoming a consumer. Even opposite party nos. 1 and 2 state that opposite party no. 2 has no connection with the present case. It is also alleged by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that the business relation between opposite party no. 1 and complainant cannot be treated as consumer dispute.
Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have specifically stated that opposite party no. 1 is doing his business independently and opposite party no. 2 has no relation with Bhalobasa Cable Network. It is also stated by opposite party nos. 1 and 2 that only to make harassment them complainant has initiated this case.
Finally, opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have prayed for dismissal of the case with cost.
The opposite party No. 4 also filed written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as levelled against him. This opposite party submits that SITI Networks ltd is Multi Systems Operator and is regulated by the rules and regulations of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India and as per Section 14 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act 1997 and any dispute between Multi Systems Operator and local Cable operator is to be decided only by the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal and Section 15 of the TRAI Act excludes completely the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to disputes between two service providers and SITI Networks ltd has been unnecessarily dragged into the present litigation by the complainant due to some ulterior and malafide motive and thus, opposite party no. 4 prayed that the instant case may be ended in dismissal.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit. Opposite parties did not file evidence on affidavit.
Ultimately because of non appearance of opposite parties case proceeded ex parte against them.
Accordingly, complainant filed his BNA and the case was heard ex parte.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but a replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant appearing in the complaint petition.
Considering the materials on record including the photocopies of documents filed on behalf of the complainant and touching upon the submissions on behalf of the ld. Advocate of the complainant at this stage there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. So, it can be said that complainant has succeeded in proving his case.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 150 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on ex parte against opposite party nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Opposite party no. 4, SITI Networks Limited is hereby restrained in handing over any set top box of “Bhalobasa Cable Network” to opposite party no. 1 without the knowledge of complainant.
Opposite party no. 1, Sri Prabir Kumar De is hereby directed to return the articles as per schedule (kha) of the complaint to the complainant.
Opposite party no. 1, Sri Prabir Kumar De is hereby directed to pay complainant Rs. 2,44,525/- towards the amount of trade license, Professional Tax. P&T., GST, income tax including power supply bills and the cost of payment towards the salary of the employees and cost of maintenance for running the business “Bhalobasa Cable Network” by the complainant.
Opposite party no. 1, Sri Prabir Kumar De is hereby directed to pay the decreetal amount as mentionedabove to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, at the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party no. 1 shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the complainant or his Advocate on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ send by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
