Kerala

Trissur

op/04/652

Mohan. M. K - Complainant(s)

Versus

Prime Cable Net Work - Opp.Party(s)

Geo Francis

29 Jul 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. op/04/652

Mohan. M. K
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Prime Cable Net Work
Asianet Sattelite Communication Ltd
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Mohan. M. K

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Prime Cable Net Work 2. Asianet Sattelite Communication Ltd

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Geo Francis

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Paul Puthur 2. Liji. K. V



Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: Petitioner’s case is that the first respondent is a partnership firm conducting the business of giving cable connection. Second respondent is a Limited Company giving cable connection. They are jointly giving the connections. Petitioner is a consumer of first respondent and has deposited Rs.1000/- for the connection. The monthly rent was Rs.100/- and renewed to Rs.125/-. There had occurred some disturbances in the telecasting due to defects in cable. Hence the complainant had contacted the first respondent. He had contacted the first respondent several times, but not turned up. Consequently the complainant demanded the deposited amount and disconnection of the cable. That also was not done by the first respondent. Later he had sent a notice dated 10.4.04 demanding three months rent. If the amount not paid they intimated to disconnect the cable service. Later they disconnected the service. Hence this complaint. 2. Counter of first respondent is as follows: There is no deposit of Rs.1000/-. The monthly subscription was Rs.190/- and not Rs.120/- as stated by the complainant. But the petitioner has remitted Rs.120/- only. There was default also. The subscription in the month of 2003 December was not paid till 7.4.04. On demand he has remitted the amount on 8.4.04. No subscription is paid in the months of January, February and March 2004. It was informed by notice that if the subscription is not paid regularly, they could not allow the discount. Later notice dated 10.4.04 was sent. There was no reply and the cable connection has disconnected on 24.4.04. There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. He has defaulted the subscription in the months of 2003 May, June, July, August and September. Hence tried to disconnect the connection. But he has remitted the amount of 2003 May and June. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. Second respondent set exparte on 15.9.06. 4. The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the deposit? (2) Whether there is deficiency in service? (3) Reliefs and costs. 5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P3 and R1 to R9 (Series). 6. Points-1 to 3: According to the respondents, three months rent is due. First respondent had stated that the subscription in the month of 2003 December was not paid till 7.4.04. On demand he had remitted the amount on 8.4.04 and no subscription is paid in the month of 2004 January, February and March. So disconnection notice had sent on 24.4.04 and the service had disconnected. Exts. P1 and P2 are the receipts showing the payment of 2.2.04 and 8.4.04. The case of the petitioner is that he had paid the subscriptions for the month of February, March and April, but one receipt has lost and others produced. According to the first respondent, Exts. P1 and P2 receipts are not the subscription in the month of February and April. The amount remitted is towards the subscription of 2003 October and 2003 December respectively and the dates 2.2.04 and 8.4.04 are the dates of remittance. It doesn’t mean that the petitioner had remitted the cable charge for the month of 2004 February and 2004 April. Ext. R8 series (2 in Nos.) are marked on the part of first respondent. On perusal it is very clear that the petitioner had not remitted a single paise in the months of 2004 January, February and March. The petitioner tried to play a foul drama by producing Exts. P1 and P2. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. The petitioner is not entitled for any reliefs. This is an unnecessary complaint filed by the complainant. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is liable to pay cost to the first respondent. 7. In the result, this complaint is dismissed with payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the first respondent within one month. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 29th day of July 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.