IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Prethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:  Member

Dated this, the 16^th  day of October    2009

OP.No.149/2005

M.Sadanandan,

Mundakkadu House,

Shyamala Line,                                                 Complainant

P.V.Quarters,

Payancheri, Iritty.

(Rep. by Adv.John Sebastian.K.)

1.Rasheed.

  Manager,  Spark Communmications,

  Cable T.V Net work,

   Mishal complex,Irrity.

  (Rep. by Adv.P.P.Satheesh)

2.K.Jayarajan,

  Managing Partner,

  Spark Communications

  Cable  TV Net work,

  Mishal Complex,Iritty.P.O.                                         Opposite parties

  (Reo. By Adv.Satheesh.P.P.)

3.Aaisha,

  Partner,

  Spark Communmications,

  Cable T.V Net work,

   Mishal complex,Irrity

O R D E R

Smt.M.D.Jessy,Member

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection act for getting an order to direct the opposite parties to reconnect the cable TV connection and to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation.

            The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: - The opposite parties are the partners of a cable TV network service at Iritty in the name and style Spark communication. The complainant availed a cable TV connection to his house from the opposite party by agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.140/-. It was also agreed to pay rent before 25^th of every month. As such the complainant paid the monthly rent up to April 2005 and got it endorsed on a card which was issued by the opposite party. More over, at the time of availing cable TV connection complainant paid an amount of Rs.1500/- as connection charge. On 8.5.05 without any prior information the opposite parties disconnected the above cable connection. The opposite parties demanded enhanced monthly rent to the tune of Rs.200/- for restoring the cable TV connection to the complainant. Due to the unexpected disconnection the complainant and his family members were deprived of viewing the TV program which caused much mental agony. The above act is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

            On receipt of complaint notice was issued to the 1st opposite party, the only opposite party then and thereafter to opposite parties 2 and 3 who were impleaded as per the contention of 1^st opposite party.2^nd opposite party appeared and adopted the version of 1^st opposite party. 3^rd opposite party remained absent and thereby declared exparte.

            1^st opposite party filed version contended as follows: Spark communication is a partnership firm. The partner K.Jayarajan, the Managing Partner, has been performing the entire affairs of Spark communication as the partner. Ashif is the other partner. Cable connection was provided to complainant on the basis of the agreement to pay Rs.140/- per month. Complainant was also agreed to pay the amount of timely enhancement. If the rent has not been paid in time disconnection shall be effected forthwith giving no notice, as per the terms. Complainant did not pay monthly rent regularly. The averment of the complainant that he has paid Rs.1500/- is false. He has paid only Rs.1000/-. So also it is false to say that the opposite party increased the rent to Rs.200/-complainant paid monthly rent only up to February 2005. When he was asked to pay rent due complainant told he was not in need of connection and thus the connection was disconnected on that basis. It is false to say that it was disconnected without the knowledge of complainant. It is not correct to say that complainant had paid monthly rent up to April 2005 complainant paid rent only up to February 2005. At the time of availing connection complainant had paid Rs.1000/-towards installation charge. This amount is not refundable incase cable TV connections are disconnected. There is no question of inconvenience or mental trouble to the complainant by any action of this opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

            On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

            The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4. Opposite party has no evidence neither oral nor documentary.

IssueNos.1 to 3

            Admittedly the complainant availed a cable TV connection on the condition to pay Rs140/- per month. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party disconnected the cable connection without notice even though he has paid the rent up to April 2005 and entered the same in the card. Ext.A1 is the entry card where payment has been recorded. Thus payment card reveals that the complainant has paid the rent up to 5.5.05. The case of the complainant is that on 8.5.05 cable was disconnected without prior intimation. Complainant alleges that when he enquired the reason for disconnection opposite party stated that the monthly rent has been increased and reconnection can only be given on payment of increased rent. Opposite party has also insulted the complainant by using filthy words. Complainant sent lawyer notice on 11.5.05 for reconnection and amount of loss. Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice. Ext.A3 postal receipt and A4 acknowledgement proves that complaint has sent lawyer notice and opposite party received it on 14.5.05. But opposite party has not sent any reply. Even in the version opposite party has not stated anything regarding the notice. Non reply of lawyer notice can only be considered as a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Opposite party has no explanation for the non reply of lawyer notice.

            Opposite party contended that it is not correct to say that the monthly rent has been increased to Rs.200/- as alleged by the complainant. Complainant has remitted the monthly rent up to February 2005. When opposite party asked to pay the defaulted rent complainant told that he was not in need of cable connection and on the basis of this representation it was disconnected.

            However it can be seen that on disconnection of cable complainant sent lawyer notice calling upon him to reinstate the connection and to pay compensation for loss and mental agony. Opposite party did not send any reply. Opposite party contended that complainant was in  default of payment of the monthly rent. The payment entry card reveals that complainant has paid monthly rent up to 5.5.05. It is the 6^th entry in the card. The entry looks nothing unusual. But opposite party contended that complainant remitted rent only up to February 2005. No notice was sent by the opposite party demanding the rent and kept mum after receiving the notice Ext.A2 from the complainant calling for to reinstate the cable connection. It is difficult to believe that the disconnection was effected at the request of the complainant taking into consideration the Ext.A2. Opposite party has not mentioned anything about this lawyer notice Ext.A2 probabilise the case of the complainant. Hence we are of opinion that there is deficiency on the part of opposite parties in cable TV disconnection of complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to answer.

            The complainant alleged that he had paid Rs.1500/- as service charge at the time of availing cable connection. Opposite party on the other hand admitting in his version that he had received only Rs.1000/-.Anyhow complainant did not raise this question in Ext.A2 lawyer notice. Anyway admitted amount Rs.1000/- can be taken into account as paid without doubt. The non-availability of TV program due to disconnection no doubt might have caused mental sufferings and complainant assess the damage in terms of money for an amount of Rs.1000/-. The complainant demanded in his notice to reinstate the connection and to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation.

            In the light of above discussion and perusal of available documents on record we are of open ion that it is just and proper directing the opposite party to reinstate cable connection to complainant and to pay Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to reinstate cable connection and to pay Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) as cost of these proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Complainant is bound to pay the prevailing rate of rent and entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection Act on the expiry of 30 days.

                                         Sd/-                                        Sd/-                 Sd/-

President                      Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Card issued by OP

A2 to A4.Copy of the lawyer notice, postal receipt and AD card

Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant                                            /forwarded by order/

                                                                        Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur