Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/152

Jinoy, S/o Chacko, Paalathadathil House, Veliyambam Post, Pulpally - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor, Satlink Cable Networks, Veliyambam, Pulpally - Opp.Party(s)

22 Jan 2010

ORDER


CDRF WayanadCivil Station,Kalpetta North
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 152
1. Jinoy, S/o Chacko, Paalathadathil House, Veliyambam Post, PulpallyKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. Propritor, Satlink Cable Networks, Veliyambam, PulpallyKerala2. Managing Director, Malanad Communication Pvt Ltd., Muttil, WayanadwayanadWayanadKerala ...........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 and Opposite Parties are represented. The 1st Opposite Party filed version, the 2nd Opposite party filed version already before.


 

2. The counsel appearing for the Complainant submitted the matter in dispute is settled between parties, hence not pressing the complaint.


 

3. The counsel appearing for the 2nd Opposite Party submitted compensatory cost if the case is disposed of on not pressing the complaint. The Complainant is filed for compensation and for an order not to disconnect the supply of signals to the T.V of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant is a subscriber and a regular payee of the subscription charges as demanded by the Opposite Parties. The 1st Opposite Party is the service provider to the Complainant and the 2nd Opposite Party is the signals provider. According to the 1st Opposite Party they act only as a link in between the signals provider the 2nd Opposite Party and the subscriber. The signals from the pay channels are to be supplied by the 2nd Opposite Party. The payment required for the same are to be remitted from time to time by the 2nd Opposite party. The liability rests upon the 1st Opposite Party is to remit the subscription charge to the 2nd Opposite Party on providing the signals. The 2nd Opposite Party has no case that they are not signals providers. The role of the 2nd Opposite Party in supply of the signals is undisputed. The submission of the counsel appearing for the 2nd Opposite Party is not based on reason. We are in the opinion that the submission of the 2nd Opposite Party for compensatory cost cannot be considered in this juncture. 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 22nd January 2010.


 


 


, , ,