Delhi

North East

CC/418/2015

krishna Chandra Dubey - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh sharma - Opp.Party(s)

06 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 418/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Krishna Chandra Dubey S/o Late Sh. R.S. Dubey R/o B-1031, MIG DDA Flats East of Loni Road, Shahdara Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.         3.	Sh. Rajesh Sharma C-320, LIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara Delhi-110093.   DEN Network Distributor Plot No.245, 4th Floor Main 100 Futa Road, Durgapuri Extn. Shahdara, Delhi-110093.   DEN Network Distributor Head office: 236, Okhla Industrial Area Phase- III, New Delhi-110020.	Opposite Parties

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

20.10.2015 06.02.2020 06.02.2020

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a subscriber / customer since last 4-5 years of OP1 which is a local service provider of Den Cables i.e. OP3 and OP2 is the distributor of Den Network for Shahdara, Delhi and adjoining localities in Delhi including the area where the complainant resides. All OPs are responsible for proper and adequate of services of network to their subscribers. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP1 never issued any payment receipt either to the complainant or any of the subscriber for the subscription fees paid by them to OP1 and if anybody asked for the same, OP1 would abruptly disconnected the cable connection and connected the same only when the fees was paid without asking for receipt, thereby misusing the their monopoly of service over the area to their whims and fancies. OP1 visited the complainant’s premises on 04.09.2015 and asked for subscription fee of Rs. 250/- + Rs. 20 (tax) and when complainant asked about the enhancement and receipt for the same, OP1 refuse to give any and disconnected the cable connection of the complainant the next day without any reason and in violation of regulation 7.4 of Standards of Quality of Service (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Cable Television – CAS Areas) Regulation 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). The complainant, made several calls and wrote e-mails to OP1 for the said disconnection but the same went un-responded to and only on 08.09.2015 due to intervention of offices bearer of Resident Welfare Association of which complainant is a Treasurer was the cable connection restored. The complainant has alleged that the OP1 has been indulging in unfair trade practice of arbitrary disconnection and taking advance payment of monthly subscription without giving any receipt thereby violating clause 7.4 mandating 15 days notice to a subscriber before disconnection and 5.2 of the aforementioned Regulation for issuing proper receipts for payment made by subscribers apart from violating Rule 12 & 14 thereof which mandate providing public awareness/ information of channel and their price etc and for dispute resolution mechanism as OPs never made known ‘Free To Air Channel’ (FTA) to complainant or its subscribers. Complainant has alleged that OP1 has violated Rule 4 of the said Regulation which cast upon the cable operator duty of maintaining records of all complaints filed by their subscribers but OP1 has no such complaint redressal mechanism in the area concerned and even fails to attend complaints within the mandatory 8 hours of their receipt as stipulated in Rule 4.4 of the said Regulation. The complainant has therefore alleged that the OP1 arbitrarily disconnected his cable connection causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss apart from social defamation of the complainant and therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP1 due to illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and malicious acts of OP1 depriving complainant and his family of cable connection for 3-4 days, complainant has issued a legal notice dated 08.09.2015 and a reminder notice dated 03.10.2015 both of which were either refused delivery of or not responded to by OP1. Therefore complainant has filed the present complaint praying for issuance of directions against OPs not to disconnected the cable connection of complainant as well as any of its subscribers without a written notice of 15 days, to issue receipt / bill of subscription paid by complainant and subscribers of DEN services and to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for mental and physical harassment, agony and financial loss as also loss of social prestige and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation cost.

Complainant has attached copy of e-mails to OPs written by the complainant supported by certificate under Section 65B (4) of Indian Evidence Act, copy of legal notice dated 07.09.2015 with postal remark of ‘no such person’ and copy of reminder legal notice dated 03.10.2015 alongwith tracking report of delivery.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 03.11.2015. OP1 and OP3 entered appearance and OP2 failed to appear despite service effected on 18.11.2015 and therefore was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2016. written statement was filed by OP1 in which it took the preliminary objection that it is not a Local Service Provider but a Distributor of OP3 and denied non issuance of payment receipt of complainant and any of its subscriber or arbitrary disconnection of cable connection of the complainant on 05.09.2015 as alleged and submitted in this regard that neither has the complainant made any complaints in the past regarding non issuance of payment receipts as he puts his signature on the card prepared  by OP1 nor was his cable connection disconnected on 05.09.2015 but the services were disrupted for a short duration due to technical fault. Per Contra OP1 submitted that the complainant had pressurized OP1 to pay Rs. 2,000/- per month to RWA which the OP1 protested as being illegal but on threats of cancelling its permit of cable business given by the complainant, OP1 had to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to RWA but the complainant out of vengeance and vendetta has filed the present complaint against the OPs and is also instigating other residence of the locality against OP1 to not make monthly payments. OP1 submitted that the complainant has not paid monthly subscription after July 2015 but on his coercive tactics is continuing to avail regular cable connection by taking undue advantage of his position as officer bearer of RWA. OP1 denied having violated any Rule of the Regulation cited by the complainant and submitted that there has been no complaints in regard to violation of any Rule by any other resident of the society and it is the OP1 which has been suffering financial loss on account of hostile, illegal acts of the complainant and denied any unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. OP1 has attached copy of subscription details of complainant with Activation Date as 29.12.2011 and copy of receipt No. 29680 dated 24.10.2015 of  Rs. 1,200/- paid by OP1 to RWA for the month of October 2015.

Written statement was filed by OP3 vide which it resisted the complaint on merits that it had already resolve the problem of the complainant through its operator that the services given the complainant were stopped due to technical error on 05.09.2015 which was cured on 08.09.2015 and the cable connection was never disconnected. OP3 denied not having being following Regulation 12 and 14 of Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 as alleged by the complainant and submitted that it is facing financial loss due to complainant enjoying the cable television facilities without paying regular monthly payment in this regard and prayed for dismissal of the complaint disputing any deficiency of service on its part.

3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP1 was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken and complainant submitted in this regard that OP1 has exercised its political connection with local leaders to pressurized complainant to withdraw the case and offered free of cost cable service in this regard which has been its modus operandi for collection of subscription in advance from its subscribers as an arm twisting tactics. The complainant submitted that and old lady residing in the said locality was also harassed by OP1 by disconnection of her cable in which regard legal notice 10.02.2016 was also sent to OP1 but not acted upon compelling the old lady to take alternate Tata Sky Connection. Complainant prayed for direction by this Forum to OP1 to place on record any receipt issued by it to its subscribers and alleged that OP1 never puts its subscribers to advance notice of disconnection. Complainant stated that he has no personal interest or misuse of his position in RWA since all its decisions are collectively taken by the executive body. Complainant further denied exercising any pressure on OP1 to pay a monthly sum to RWA and such allegation are baseless and false. Regarding allegation of non-payment of subscription after July 2015 as made out by OP1, complainant submitted that he has already paid monthly subscription upto September 2015 and willing to pay the same for the ensuing months but OP1 has deliberately not collected the same and even otherwise it takes the subscription of the following month or current month without issuing any receipt thereby victimizing its subscribers of its illegal, unwarranted, unjustified and coercive actions and making black money out of the said business.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP3 was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to defence taken by OP3 in which the complainant submitted that OP3 is responsible for acts of OP1 (its local cable operator) and for non compliance of rules by it related to cable network but OP3 did not take any action against OP1 for violating Rule 12 and 14 of the Act/Regulation. Complainant also submitted that OP3 has admitted that the cable was disconnected but took the plea of a technical error as a bald denial which is in contradiction to allegation of OP1. Complainant further submitted that OP1 has not been issuing any receipt for payments against the subscription collected by it from a colony of 900 to 1100 MIG Flats and is thereby escaping all Government Taxes accumulating black money and therefore prayed for relief claim.  
5. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by complainant exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the complaint as Ex-CW1/1 to CW1/10.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by OP1 and OP3 reiterating their respective defence. OP1 exhibited the receipt No. 976186 with respect to the old lady in the same locality as complainant of refund of Rs. 800/- given to her by OP1 on 12.05.2016 and OP1 received the set top box with remote.
7. Written arguments were filed by all parties in reassertion / reiteration of their respective grievance / defence taken.  

On direction issued by this Forum on 31.01.2019 to all parties to file the cable TV Regulation Act and Notifications relied upon by all of them, complainant alleging violation thereof and OPs negating the said allegation, complainant placed on record the Standards of Quality of Service (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Cable Television – CAS Areas) Regulation 2006. OPs placed on record copy of Cable TV Network Rules 1994, Cable Television Network Regulation Act 1995, Notifications by Government of India, Ministry of I&B dated 14.01.2003, 10.07.2003 and 31.07.2006, TRAI Notification dated 23.08.2006 highlighting the relevant rules therein.

OP1 was also directed to place on record copy of payment receipts issued by it for the period July 2015 to complainant and other subscribers but he failed to furnish the same.

8. We have heard the arguments addressed by all parties and have bestowed our anxious consideration to the documents placed on record by all sides and the Enactment / Notification / Rules governing cable TV operation placed on record by all sides.

Despite sufficient opportunity granted to OP1 to place on record subscription fee payment receipts which is claimed to have provided to all its subscribers including the complainant for the period of July 2015, OP1 was unable to produce the same and therefore adverse inference is drawn against OP1 in this regard since it is one of the key allegations leveled by the complainant against OP1 in the present complaint apart from arbitrary disconnection of his cable connection from 04.09.2015 to 08.09.2015. OP1 has also failed to produce any complaint register maintained by it. OP3 being the governing body responsible for the acts of its distributors has also failed to put forth any cogent evidence in support of its alleged compliance and non violation of the rules promulgated under the relevant provisions of Cable Television Act. Therefore two stark violations of clause 5.2 and 7.4 of the Regulations 2006 have gone un-rebutted due to lack of evidence filed by OPs.  

9. We therefore hold OPs guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice for non issuance of payment receipt for subscription fees paid by its subscribers and arbitrary disconnection of cable TV without mandatory notice of 15 days apart from failure to maintain complaint register and following billing procedures thereby violating clause 4 and 5 of the Regulation and having no redressal mechanism as mandated under Rule 14 of Cable Television Network Rules 1994.

In view of the observations so made by this Forum we allow the present complaint and direct OPs to provide proper payment receipt of payment made by its subscribers to them including the complainant in compliance of Clause 5.2 of TRAI Notification dated 23.08.2006 read with clause 5.2 of Standards of Quality of Service (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Cable Television – CAS Areas) Regulation 2006 and also not to disconnect the cable connection of complainant or any of its subscribers without a written notice of 15 days clearly indicating the specific reason (s) for disconnection as per TRAI Notification dated 23.08.2006 read with clause 7.4 of Standards of Quality of Service (Broadcasting and Cable Services) (Cable Television – CAS Areas) Regulation 2006. We further direct all OPs to pay jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs. 7,000/- to the complainant towards mental and physical harassment caused due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs inclusive of litigation charges.

10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on 06.02.2020.

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member