Smt. Sangita Paul, Member

This is a case filed by Smt. Mallika Mondal, W/o. Shri Bibhuti Bhusan Mondal residing at Uttar Khatsara, P.O.-Dakshin Barasat, P.S. – Joynagar, Dist. – South 24 Parganas against Roy Chowdhury Cable with a prayer for a direction upon the OP to provide cable connection to the complainant in a regular manner, to pass necessary order, to give compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- only.  , 

The OP is Roy Chowdhury Cable. The proprietor is Late Animesh Roy Chowdhury and Shri Aparesh Roy Chowdhury.  The name of father of both the OPs is Late Ajit Roy Chowdhury.  The Address is Village - Beliadanga, P.O. – Dakshin Barasat, P.S. – Joynagar, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743 374.

The complainant, by filing the case, states that the complainant paid all charges and fees for recharge in respect of cable service as provided by the OP.  On 08.12.2019 the complainant paid all the requisite charges for the cable connection to the OP, but the OP stopped the cable service from 16.12.2019.  Thereafter the complainant requested the OP to provide the said cable service but in spite of his repeated requests the OP did not provide the said service.  The OP Aparesh Roy Chowdhury insulted the complainant in a bad manner and even the OP would not provide the cable service at any point of time.   

That the cause of action arose on 08.12.2019 and the cause of action is still continuing.  The compensation claimed by the complainant is below Rs.5,00,000/- .  The Commission has appropriate jurisdiction to try this case. 

The OP Aparesh Roy Chowdhury states that he was one of the proprietors of Roy Chowdhury cable.  It appears that the present OP is one of the OPs.  Another OP, Animesh Roy Chowdhury passed away.  Then Animesh Roy Chowdhury and legal heirs of Animesh Roy Chowshury became the owners of Roy Chowdhury Cable.

The OP states that the allegations made in complaint petition are false and the OP strongly denies the same.  All the allegations are based on the point of law.

It is strongly denied that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by paying regular charges / fees.  It is specifically denied that the complainat ever paid all charges for cable connection of the television as provided by the OP or OP ever stopped the cable connection and the complainant requested the OP to provide the said cable service or that in spite of repeated request, the OP did not provide the said service or Aparesh Roy Chowdhury ever used filthy languages and insulted or threatened the complainant in any manner whatsoever.

The complainant ever approached the office of the Assistant Director, Department of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice, South 24 Parganas, for restoring the cable connection.  The memos have been issued by the OP. 

It is not true that OP did not pay heed to the problem of the complainant.  It is not true that the complainant suffers due to negligence, deprivation, harassment and mental agony.

The Indian Cable Net Company, is the original owner and Roy Chowdhury Cable is the franchise of Indian Cable Net Company Ltd.  The complainant maintains a registered book of recharge of cable network.  The complainant is to pay the fee within 07.12.2019 for continuing the cable service.  Thereafter the complainant is not entitled to get connection.  In this case, the complainant paid fees for recharge on 08.12.2019 at about 08:56:56, i.e. before the beginning of office hours.  The Op wanted to scrutiny and visited the spot but the house was under lock and key.

The OP found the signal as proper.  No disturbance was detected through splitter (T3) and DB Meter.  The complainant’s line was also accurate.

The complaint was lodged within 72 hours.  The fees for recharge was not paid to the office of the OP during the continuation of the period of cable service.  As the complainant paid the fees, the line was restored to the set top Box.

That the OP is not liable for the problem faced by the complainant.  The complainant made the application with an ulterior motive.  There is no cause of action to file the instant complaint.  The application is not maintainable according to law and facts.

The OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

That the case was filed on 19.02.2020.  the case was admitted on 28.02.2020.  On 18.04.2022, the complainant is present.  OP Aparesh Roy Chowdhury filed power.  Another OP, Animesh Roy Chowdhury died.  Hence the complainant prays for incorporating the legal heirs by filing substitution petition.  The prayer for filing W/V is also allowed.  On 24.05.2022, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant is present.  OP, Aparesh Roy Chowddhury is also present.  He files W/V.  Copy served.  On 21.06.2022, the complainant prays for time for filing substitution petition.  Prayer is hereby considered and allowed.  On 08.08.2022, the complainant prayed for time for filing substitution petition.  Prayer is considered and allowed.  On 13.09.2022, the complainant prays for expunging the name of Animesh Roy Chowdhury, as the complainant was not in a position to collect the names of the legal heirs of Animesh Roy Chowdhury.  The name of Animesh Roy Chowdhury has been expunged.  On 13.01.2023 the complainant prays for time for filing evidence on affidavit.  Prayer is allowed.  On 06.04.2023, OP, Aparesh Roy Chowdhury filed questionnaire.  Copy served.  On 27.06.2023, OP prays for treating his W/V as evidence on affidavit.  Prayer is allowed.  On 29.08.2023 the complainant prays for treating his complaint petition as BNA.  The prayer of complainant is hereby allowed.  OP filed BNA.  Heard argument of both parties in full.  Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement. 

                                   Points for consideration :-

1. Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

Point No.1:- 

On perusal of records and documents filed by both the parties, it appears that the complainant took a cable connection from Roy Chowdhury Cable.  The complainant pays fees for recharge every month.  It appears that the complainant pays a monthly rent to the OP for this cable connection.  So the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(7) of C. P. Act, 2019.  Hence the 1^st point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OP.

Point No:2 : 

The complainant, being a consumer faced some problems.  She had hired a cable line from Roy Chowdhury Cable.  The complainant is required to pay the fee for recharge on or within 07.12.2019.  Because the date of expiry was 07.12.2019.  As per rule of TRAI the consumer / the complainant is to pay the charge within the above mentioned period.  If the amount is deposited after the date of expiry, i.e. after 07.12.2019, the cable line would became inoperative.  TRAI has undergone a drastic change during the recent years.  The initiative of TRAI is to create a conducive environment for the cable sectors resulting in healthy competitive markets.  The consumers are also benefitted in a greater way.  Still they are bound to pay the fee for recharge within the stipulated period.  Otherwise, the cable line would be inoperative.  The paper shows that the fee for recharge was deposited on 08.12.2019 and the line again became operative.  It is pertinent to mention that being a cable operator, the OP acted as per norms and guidelines of the Law of the Land. Had the fees been deposited before 08.12.2019, the negligence of OP would have been proved.  Negligence is a breach of duty caused by omission to do something, which a prudent man would not do.  In this case, no negligence and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been detected against the OP.  Hence, the 2^nd point is decided against the complainant.

Point No.03 :-

As no negligence, is proved against the OP, it also appears that no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice have been adopted by the OP, so no question of harassment by the OP arises.  So, the 3^rd point is also decided against the complainant.

In the result, the complaint case fails.

Hence, it is,

                                                                         ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest.

We pass no order as to cost.

Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost. 

That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.  

                  Sangita Paul                    

                   Member