D.O.F. 12.11.2010
D.O.O. 12.12.2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 12th day of December, 2013.
C.C.No.270/2010
Nikesh T.
S/o. P. Kunhappa,
Thoonoli House, : Complainant
Cherat, Edat P.O.,
Payyannur
(Rep. by Adv. K.K. Balaram)
Pradeepan,
Proprietor,
Mangalya Vision : Opposite Party
Edat P.O., Edat,
Payyannur. PIN : 670327
(Rep. by Adv. B.P. Saseendran)
O R D E R
Sri. Babu Sebastian, Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund `1500 and `900 received by opposite party as six month’s rent along with `5000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he along with his neighbours have availed cable TV connection from the opposite party’s institution, “Mangalya Vision” by giving as advance with a condition to return the advance amount. But they were not getting the transmission of programmes clearly from the date of connection itself. So the complainant along with his neighbours complained the same. There was no response from the side of opposite party. The complainant further states that the opposite party used to give connection by using substandard old cable, which effects the transmission of programme. But opposite party is not cared about these complaints. The complainant and his family members were not able to see and enjoy the programme due to the transmission problem. TV become a worthless equipment. Due to the said reason the neighbours are already purchased DTH Dish Antenna. When the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to provide connection of cable using standard quality, the opposite party behaved rudely and misbehaved towards the complainant. The complainant had taken cable TV connection mainly for the old aged parents and due to the unfair practice of the opposite party they had suffered much mental agony. So there is a grave deficiency on service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party appeared and filed his version denying that the complainant is not a consumer of him. The opposite party admitted that they had disconnected the cable TV connection taken by the father of the complainant, Sri. P. Kunhambu due to non-payment of monthly rent for nine months on 2010 January. So during the March 2010 the complainant had approached the opposite party and requested for reconnection of the cable. But opposite party informed of his willingness for reconnection only after payment of Balance due amount `1350. Thereafter complainant compelled the opposite party to give reconnection without payment of balance due amount, the opposite party was not able to reconnect the cable. The averments made in the complaint that the opposite party is a drunkard and misbehaved towards woman etc are denied. The opposite party has received an amount of `l300 towards the price of the cable at the time of giving connection. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the side of opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed in the complaint.
- Relief and cost.
This matter is a case once remanded from the Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission directing fresh disposal, after giving ample opportunity to both sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
The evidence consist of the oral evidence adduced by PW1, PW2, Pw3 and documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A5.
Issues No.1 to 3 :
On the stipulated date the complainant appeared before the Forum and filed chief affidavit in lieu at examination in chief the complainant alleged that he had availed cable connection from opposite party by giving an advance amount of `1500 with a promise to return the same. Though connection was given there was no proper transmission of programme and even after reporting the same repeatedly. Again on May 15th the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to give connection properly, the opposite party instead of doing so insulted and abused the complainant. Even though opposite party filed version in earlier stage, subsequently he did not appear before the Forum. The contention raised in the version cannot be considered as evidence, since mere pleading is not evidence. The complainant adduced evidence by way of chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to A5 also marked on his side. No evidence adduced on the side of opposite party. Opposite party in his version admitted that he had received 1500 as advance. Ext.A1 shows Deposit receipt of `1500 issued by opposite party. Ext.A2 to A5 shows that the complainant paid the monthly rent regularly. So it is clear that there is no dues on the part of complainant. Under such circumstances if there is no uninterrupted clear transmission that amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and there by liable for compensating the sufferings of the complainant. Opposite party did not even mind to come forward and adduce evidence before the Forum. The non-appearance of the opposite party itself is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. This way of approach of opposite party make it clear that he has not taken any interest to make solution for the grievance of the complaint. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that opposite party is liable to return the amount of `1500 paid by the complainant and sum of `1000 as compensation. The complainant is also entitled for getting an amount of `500 as cost. Hence the issues No.1 to 3 answered in favour of complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to refund the amount of `1500 (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) received from the complaint and to pay `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and `500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of this litigation to the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 12th day of Decmber, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Deposit receipt dated 26.02.2004.
A2. Monthly subscription receipt dated 01.03.2004.
A3. Copy of monthly subscription receipt dated 30.06.2004.
A4. Receipt dated 11.07.2004.
A5. Copy of receipt dated 11.05.2005.
Exhibits for the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
PW2. U. Balan
PW3. M. Ranjith
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
