Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/162/2015

Krishna Cable Network, Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.M. Natarajan - Opp.Party(s)

R. Munuswamy

24 Jun 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH           :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 162 of 2015

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.452 of 2012 dated 27.06.2013 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Coimbatore.

 

Friday, the 24^th day of June 2022

 

Krishna Cable Network

Rep. by its Manager

No.2 Anandham Nagar

Pongaliyur Road

Veerakeralam

Coimbatore – 641 007.                                           .. Appellant/ Opposite Party

 

- Vs –

S.M. Natarajan

S/o. Maruthakutti

No.1, Ponmuthu Nagar

Veerakeralam, SBI Post

Coimbatore -641 007.                                             .. Respondent/ Complainant

   

    Counsel for Appellant / Opposite Party              : M/s. R. Munusamy

    Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Party – in – person

                                                                            

                                                                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 25.04.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.       This appeal has been filed by the Appellant/ Opposite Party under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.452 of 2012, allowing the complaint filed by the respondent/ complainant herein. 

 

2.  The respondent is the complainant and the appellant is the opposite party.  For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred as per their ranking in the complaint.

 

3. The factual background culminating in this appeal is as follows:The case of the Complainant is that he availed cable television services of the opposite party and he was promptly paying the charges for the same. Whileso, all the Cable Television Network were clubbed with Arasu Cable Network and the cable network was run by the Government.The Government fixed a sum of Rs.70/- as monthly charges for each cable connection. The complainant has been paying the said charges to the opposite party for the past 7 months. On 08.09.2012, when the staff of the opposite party came to the complainant’s house for collection of cable television charges, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.70/- that was due for the month of August 2012.  But, the said staff of the opposite party had demanded a sum of Rs.100/- from next month.  The complainant had informed him that he is paying the amount fixed by the Government for cable connection and he has further informed him that he is ready to pay any additional charges if the amount is fixed by the Government. In such circumstances, the opposite party abruptly disconnected the cable services to the complainant’s house, from 09.09.2012.  Hence, the complainant had contacted over phone and informed the opposite party about the disconnection of cable television services on 11.09.2012 and 12.09.2012.  But there was no proper response from the opposite party.  Hence, the complainant had personally visited the office of the opposite party and informed them about the disconnection.  But the staff in the office ill-treated the complainant.  The complainant also requested them to provide a complaint book to register the complaint regarding disconnection, for which the staff of the opposite party gave a lethargic reply that the Government has not given any instructions to keep a complaint book.  In this regard the complainant gave a letter on 12.09.2012 to the opposite party expressing his grievance.  But the said letter was returned to the complainant with an endorsement “not claimed”.  Hence, finally left with no other option, he has filed the present complaint for the following directions to the opposite party: 

1. to reconnect the cable television connection to the complainant ;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony and sufferings; and
3. to pay the cost of the complaint.

 

4.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written version stating that the complainant was working as a Sub Inspector of Police in Vadavalli Police station.  After his retirement he shifted his residence from Vadavalli to Veerakeralam and obtained the cable connection from the opposite party.  Initially the complainant asked for a free cable connection for his family but the opposite party Mr.Nanda Kumar, who was running the cable television network refused to give a free connection.  The opposite party had 750 cable connections in Veerakeralam and they were charging Rs.150/- for a connection.  In January 2011, the complainant got the cable connection from the opposite party and was paying Rs.150/- per month till August 2011.  While so, the Tamilnadu Government introduced the Arasu Cable Network and fixed the monthly charges at Rs.70/- per connection.  Thereafter the complainant was paying Rs.70/- per month for his cable connection till 08.09.2012.  Later, the complainant met Mr.Nanda Kumar, who is running the cable network and pressurised him to take his son, who is without a job, as a partner in the opposite party cable network.  But, Mr. Nanda Kumar did not accept his offer.  Thereafter, the complainant refused to give the cable connection charges for the month of September and also demanded a free connection and bribe for each cable connection.  The complainant had also threatened the opposite party.  The opposite party has given cable connection to the complainant who is residing in the ground floor and another family residing in the first floor, in one wire for both the houses.  The first floor family is paying the charges properly.  Hence, the opposite party was unable to disconnect the cable connection for the complainant.  The complainant defaulted in paying the cable charges for 4 months.  In November 2012 when the complainant vacated the house, he cut all the cables laid by the opposite party and took all the wires with him.  The opposite party had lodged a complaint before Vadavalli police station, in this regard.  Subsequently, the complainant had obtained Dish Antenna and is watching the Television.  Now, the complainant is not a customer of the opposite party.  There is no contract between the complainant and the opposite party.  The complainant has filed the present complaint only to harass the opposite party.  The opposite party would take action against the complainant to recover the default amount of Rs.280/- [4 months x Rs.70/-] and the cables.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

5.  In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and 5 documents, which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.  On the side of the opposite party, along with proof affidavit 7 documents were filed and were marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B7.

 

6.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence on records, has allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to reconnect the cable television connection and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost, within a period of two months from the date of the order.  Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the opposite party.

 

7.  Heard the submissions of the counsel for the appellant/ opposite party and perused the material on records.  No representation for the respondent/ complainant.

 

8.  The main grievance of the complainant is that he obtained a cable connection from the opposite party.  Initially he was paying a sum of Rs.150/- as monthly charges.  Later, when the cable network was merged with the Arasu Cable Network, the charge was reduced to Rs.70/- per month.  Inspite of reduction of the monthly charges to Rs.70/- , the staff of the opposite party demanded Rs.100/-.  When the complainant refused to pay the excess amount, the cable connection was disconnected by the opposite party.   Hence, he has come forward with the present complaint.  Whereas, according to the opposite party, the complainant is a retired Sub Inspector of Police.  He exercised his undue influence and demanded for free cable connection for his house.  The opposite party has refused to give free connection.  Moreover, the complainant compelled the opposite party to take his son as his business partner, which was also refused by the opposite party.  Hence, he has come forward with a false complaint. 

 

9.  As observed by the District Forum, the opposite party has not chosen to let in any evidence in order to substantiate his defence.  The opposite party had submitted that the complainant being a retired Sub Inspector exercised undue influence over the opposite party and demanded for free connection, was watching cable television without paying for 4 months and also has given connection to his two sons without getting permission from the opposite party.  To prove these allegations, no tangible evidence was produced before this Commission.  At the same time, the opposite party has also not specifically denied the case of the complainant that the cable television network was disconnected by them.  Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party had disconnected the cable TV connection without any justification.  Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum.  However, considering the factual aspects of the case, we are of the opinion that the sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the District Forum to the complainant towards mental agony, could be reduced to Rs.5,000/-, to meet the ends of justice.

 

10.   In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed, by reducing the amount of compensation awarded towards mental agony, from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.5,000/-.  Except this modification, the order dated 27.06.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. No.452 of 2012, is confirmed in all other aspects. 

 

 

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                         R.SUBBIAH                        

             MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT