Proprietor, Peak System Cable Net Work, Mananathavady. V/S Rakesh KK, Devi Krishna, Vimala Nagar, Mananthavady. - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/154

Rakesh KK, Devi Krishna, Vimala Nagar, Mananthavady. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, Peak System Cable Net Work, Mananathavady. - Opp.Party(s)

K V Prachod

22 Jan 2010

ORDER


CDRF WayanadCivil Station,Kalpetta North
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 154

1. Rakesh KK, Devi Krishna, Vimala Nagar, Mananthavady.Kerala						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Proprietor, Peak System Cable Net Work, Mananathavady.Kerala2. Managing Director , Malanad Communications RA ltd, Muttil.WayanadWayanadKerala						...........Respondent(s)

For the Appellant :

For the Respondent :

Dated : 22 Jan 2010

ORDER

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.

By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-

The Complainant represented the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed versions. The counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted that the dispute is settled and the complaint is not pressed. The 2^nd Opposite Party submitted compensatory cost if the complaint is disposed of on not pressing the complaint.

The complaint filed is for compensation and not to disconnect the signals supplied to the Complainant. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version. It is admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that the 1^st Opposite Party is not alone directly connected in the supply of signals to the T.V channels. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the supplier of the signals. The role of the 1^st Opposite Party is to receive the subscription charges from the customers. Whereas in the non payment of the prescribed charge to avail the signal from pay channels, the 2^nd Opposite Party in some occasions has shown irregularity and the signals were not supplied by the pay channels. The sum up of the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party is that the complaint filed is in collusion with the 1^st Opposite Party and more over the Complainant is not a consumer of the 2^nd Opposite Party. The signals supplied to the 1^st Opposite Party is not disconnected hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

The 2^nd Opposite Party has no case that the signals from the different channels are not supplied by them to the 1^st Opposite Party. The signals necessary for the Complainant's T.V is directly given by the 1^st Opposite Party and the portion of the subscription charge collected by the 1^st Opposite Party is also given to the 2^nd Opposite Party. In short the submission of the 2^nd Opposite Party that they are to be compensated with cost is not sustainable. The 2^nd Opposite Party has a role in supply of signals. The contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party that the complaint is filed in collusion with the 1^st Opposite Party cannot be considered in the absence of any evidence. The submission of the 2^nd Opposite Party for compensation is rejected. Since the Complainant is not willing to proceed with the complaint. The complaint is disposed of.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 22^nd January 2010.


,	,	,