Date of filing : 01-08-06<br /> Date of order : 05-09-08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.No.94/06<br /> Dated this, the 5th day of September 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> A.M.Ibrahim,<br /> S/o.Mohammed Chettungui, } Complainant<br /> R/at Rehmath House,<br /> Po.Alampadi, Kasaragod.Taluk.<br /> <br /> Saleem,<br /> Proprietor,<br /> City Cable Net Work, } Opposite party<br /> Salamiya Building, Naimarmoola,<br /> Po.Vidya Nagar, Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant Ibrahim is that the cable TV connection provided in his home was illegally disconnected on 20-06-06 by opposite party Saleem. Hence he lost opportunity to watch current affairs and world cup Foot ball matches which was fixtured from 09-06-2006 to 10-07-06. Therefore the complaint claiming restoration of his cable TV connection with a compensation of Rs.1,00, 000/- for the loss hardships and mental agony sustained to him.<br /> 2. Opposite party Saleem resists the claim and justifies his action on many ground. According to Saleem the complainant committed default in making payment of monthly rent and his repeated requests for rent for June 2006 did not yield any result. Ibrahim has not paid any amount as deposit for getting the cable connection even though he promised to pay it at the time of providing connection. Further Mr. Ibrahim provided connection to his brother unauthorisedly and the looping caused much disturbance to the quality of signals to the near by houses. The repeated requests since December 2005 not to give the unauthorized connection was also heeded no result. Hence ultimately left with no option the connection was disconnected. There is no deficiency in service in disconnecting the cable TV connection provided to Ibrahim and he is not entitled to any compensation.<br /> 3. Ibrahim filed affidavit reiterating what is stated in the complaint. Exts A1 to A6 marked on his side. He was cross-examined . Opposite party also filed affidavit in support of his contentions and faced cross-examination. Thereafter at the instance of Saleem a Commissioner was deputed to report whether any cable connection is provided to the brother of the complainant. Commissioner filed his report. The Commissioner reported that there is no cable connection in the house of Abdulla, the complainant’s brother on the date of inspection i.e. 01-07-08.<br /> 4. The specific case of Ibrahim is that his cable TV connection was disconnected without any valid reason and there was no due towards rent at the time of disconnection. Saleem admits that Ibrahim has paid rent on 18-06-06 which was the rent due towards May 2006 and the monthly rent for 2006 was not paid and hence the disconnection was made on 10-07-06 and not on 20-06-06 as alleged by Ibrahim. But this contention is not acceptable in view of Ext.A1. On the bottom portion of Ext.A1 in which the payment chart is printed it is printed in Malayalam as <br /> (The rent shall be paid in due time or after 3 months connection will be disconnected). So as per this stipulation the connection ought not to have been disconnected till the rent is due for 3 months. <br /> 5. The next contention of Saleem is that Ibrahim looped the connection and give unauthorized connection to his brother Abdulla and he did not abstain from doing so inspite of repeated requests This contention is also not believable in view of Ext.A2 series receipts issued by Saleem jointly in the name of Ibrahim and Abdulla, the brother of complainant. The specific contention of Saleem is that there is no cable connection is provided to the house of Abdulla and the illegal extraction of cable signals to his house compelled him to disconnect the connection provided to Ibrahim. Saleem who rendered evidence as DW1 during his cross-examination stated that Abdulla has no cable connection from him. How the name of Abdulla came in Ext.A2 series is not explained by him. Had there been no cable TV connection provided to Abdulla, then his name should not have been entered in Ext.A2 series of receipts. This would also go to show that it is not the alleged unauthorised connection to Abdulla which caused the disconnection of the cable TV connection to Ibrahim. <br /> 6. The further contention of Saleem is that he has not received any advance amount from Ibrahim for providing cable TV connection. But Ibrahim asserted that he deposited Rs.1000/- for getting the cable TV connection. During cross-examination DW1 admitted that he is not issuing receipt for accepting the deposit amount and he will issue receipts those who demanded it. This would go to prove that Saleem is not in the habit of issuing receipts to every one who making payment of security/advance for getting cable TV connection. So we accept the case of Ibrahim that he paid Rs.1000/- as deposit to obtain cable connection. <br /> 7. Had there been a valid genuine cause for disconnection then Saleem should have been sticked on it, but raising many feeble baseless causes for disconnection of the cable TV connection casts doubt on the genuiness of disconnection of cable TV provided to Ibrahim.<br /> 8. So we hold that Saleem was deficient in his service in the case of disconnection of cable TV connection provided to Ibrahim.<br /> Relief & Costs. Ibrahim stated that due to illegal disconnection of cable TV connection during the time of world cup foot ball in 2006 he suffered much mental agony. Truly a foot ball lover will be put to much mental sufferings if his cable connection is disconnected during the season of world cup foot ball since he losses the precious moments of such a worldly event. Saleem is liable to compensate for this mental agony adequately. Ibrahim is also entitled to get back the cable TV connection restored.<br /> Therefore we allow the complaint and Saleem is directed to restore the cable TV connection of Ibrahim and he is directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the compensation for illegally disconnecting the Cable TV connection. Saleem further directed to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Exts.<br /> A1. Monthly service card<br /> A2. Series bills issued by Opposite party.<br /> A3.World cup 2006 Tournament Schedule<br /> <br /> A4. 26-08-04 Cash bill issued by Anuradha Enterprises, Kasaragod.<br /> A5. 12-07-2006 Copy of lawyer notice.<br /> A6. 22-07-06 reply notice.<br /> PW1. Ibrahim<br /> DW1. Saleem.C.M.<br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Pj/<br /> Forwarded by Order<br /> <br /> <br /> SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT <br />