Propritor, Vadakkanad Cable Network, Vadakkanad, S Bathery. V/S M K Kurian, S/o Kuriakose, Mandharath House, Kidanganad Post, Vadakkanad. - Consumer Court Case

Kerala

Wayanad

CC/09/151

M K Kurian, S/o Kuriakose, Mandharath House, Kidanganad Post, Vadakkanad. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propritor, Vadakkanad Cable Network, Vadakkanad, S Bathery. - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2010

ORDER


CDRF WayanadCivil Station,Kalpetta North
CONSUMER CASE NO. 09 of 151

1. M K Kurian, S/o Kuriakose, Mandharath House, Kidanganad Post, Vadakkanad.Kerala						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
1. Propritor, Vadakkanad Cable Network, Vadakkanad, S Bathery.Kerala2. 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 represented the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed version. 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 not pressing the complaint.

The sum up of the complaint is as follows:- The complaint filed is for compensation and not to disconnect the signals supplied to the Complainant. The Complainant is a subscriber the signals are supplied to the Complainant directly by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the signals provider. It was known to the complainant that the signals to the T.V connection would be disconnected by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The subscription towards the pay channels liable to be paid by the Opposite Parties. Any latches on the part of the Opposite Parties in payment of the prescribed charge for signals to the pay channels, it would lead to the disconnection of the signals supply. The Complainant is a regular payee of the subscription charge to the Opposite Party. The sum up of the version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party is that the signals are provided by the 2^nd Opposite Party upon remittance of the prescribe charge agreed upon. In case of any failure on the part of the 2^nd Opposite Party on payment of the prescribed charge, to the pay channels. The disconnection of the signals would be resulted for which the 1^st Opposite Party is not liable. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no case that they are not the signals providers to the T.V subscribers. The contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party that the complaint is filed in collusion with the 1^st Opposite Party cannot be considered. The role of the 2^nd Opposite party in providing the signals is undisputed the submission of the 2^nd Opposite Party for compensatory cost is not considerable in this circumstance hence 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.


,	,	,