CDRF Wayanad Civil Station,Kalpetta North consumer case(CC) No. 97/2006
Chandrashekaran nair Chandran,Bindhu Bhavan,
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Propritor,Star cable TV Network
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. K GHEEVARGHESE 2. P Raveendran 3. SAJI MATHEW
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member The gist of the case is as follows: The complainant's son- in -law had bought a Samsung T.V. on 27.8.01 paying Rs.13,055 /-and installed at the complainant's house. The price of the TV is Rs.16,500/- and the complainant's son-in-law got the TV at the concessional rate as military price. The complainants had taken a cable TV connection from the opposite party and was paying Rs.140.40 per month as rent. On 12.3.2005, excess current was flown through the cable wire which was tied together with the earth wire and support wire and the TV stabilizer was spoiled. This loss would not have occurred if the opposite party had tied the cable separately from the earth wire. The opposite party's deficiency in service has caused loss to the complainant and the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.13,055/- as the price of the T.V. 2. The Opposite party appeared and filed version. They deny all the allegations except the cable connection to the complainant. The opposite party has not denied the cable and earth wire tied together or has not caused any damage to the T.V. The damage of TV and Cable wire was due to lightning and the opposite party has instructed all his customers to disconnect the cable at the time of lighting . The Samsung 2007 TV itself does not cost more than Rs.9,000/-. The complainant's TV is of 2001 model, it would not have cost Rs.13,055/-. So the opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint. 3. The Complainant was examined as PW1. Ext. A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the complainant. Commission report was marked as Ext. C1. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1. The opposite party was examined as OPW 1. No documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. 4. The issues for consideration are as follows: 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief. 5. Point No.1: The complainants contention is that the TV was damaged due to excess power flow, which is supported by the commission report, Ext. C1. Both Ext. C1 and Ext. A6 shows that the repair of TV is not profitable. As per Ext. A6, it will cost Rs.8,275/-. The complainant's case is that excess power flow was due to the negligence of opposite party in lying the cable was supported by Ext. A7 photograph. The cable is seen in touch with earth wire and very near to the power line. So the probability is that excess power flow was due to the negligent handling of cable connection by the opposite party. So the point No.1 is found against the opposite party. 6. Point No.2 The bill Ext. A1 shows that the TV is 2001 model, even though the price of TV is Rs.13,055/- at that time. The complainant has used it for 5 years. Expert commissioner also stated that a 2001 model TV will cost only Rs.2500/-. So, the complainant is not entitled for the entire bill price of the TV. He is entitled for the price after deducting a proportionate amount for the 5 years for wear and tear and normal depreciation in value of the same model TV. Hence the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.4,000/-(Four thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as costs to the complainant within 30 days of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th day of June 2008. PRESIDENT: Sd/- MEMBRT: I Sd/- MEMBER: II Sd/- /True copy/ Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD. Witness examined for complainant PW1 K.P. Chandrasekaran Complainant PW2 Kuriakose, Photographer CW1 Sunil kumar Electrical Engineer Witness examined for opposite party: OPW1 Sanny Cable TV operator Exhibits marked for complainant A1 Bill issued by canteen stores department Dt. 27.8.2001 A2 Warranty card A3 Bill Dt. 3.12.2004 A4 Bill Dt. 9.1.2005 A5 Bill Dt. 3.2.05 A6 Letter Dt. 10.11.2007 A7 photo series No.3 A8 Negative of photographs A9 Bill Dt.13.3.2005 C1 Commission report Exhibits marked for Opposite parties. Nil Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
