MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 20.5.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 56 of 2010.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had got three Cable TV Connection from the OP. It was submitted by the complainant that service of the OP was very poor and most of the time cable network remained defective for which, the complainant had informed on telephone to the OP time and again. On 3.1.2010 the cable network totally stopped at about 11.30 AM when the complainant and his wife were watching TV serial and it remained defective upto 12 noon next day. On 7.1.2010 at 9  AM the cable supply got totally disconnected. The complainant left his house to attend the court at 9.30 AM and when he returned from the court at 2.30 PM the cable supply was still not there. The complainant immediately rang up the OP and Ms.Manjit Kaur, Receptionist attended the call but she expressed her inability to restore the cable supply immediately as the workers had gone to take the lunch. She promised to get the same repaired by 4 PM. However the cable supply was not restored upto 6 PM. At 6.10 PM the complainant again rang up the OP and told the receptionist to restore the cable supply but the same was not repaired and the complainant remained without cable supply the whole night. On 8.1.2010, the cable supply was still not there upto 11 AM. The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by the OP and after the filing of the reply, none appeared on behalf of OP. Hence, OP was proceeded against exparte. In the reply, the representative of the OP submitted that the cable network was upgraded and also converted from analog to digital and the entire Sector 36 cable network was on fiber optic. It was submitted by the OP that fault in transmission line is not under their control due to multiple factors like mischief by bad elements, theft of cable wires, natural calamities, pilferage by kundi connections but it was submitted that all the complaints when received are duly attended and rectified by the staff of OP during normal working hours and there were no abnormal delay in restoring the service.  The transmission of the cable network was normal in the locality of the complainant during the time mentioned by the complainant in the complaint. All other allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.       The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.       The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

6.          Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant. Sh.C.L.Chaudhary, appellant in person has appeared and Sh.Balkar Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent.

7.       In appeal, it is submitted by the appellant that the deficiency in service prayed by the appellant is specific and not general and the appellant has sworn affidavit to that effect whereas the OP has not sworn any affidavit. The appellant submitted that he has made a complaint regarding his connection only and not of any other member of the locality and his supply is separate from the main line and the default occurs from where the supply has been given to him from the main line. The appellant submits that if any other member of the locality has not made any complaint in the Consumer Court regarding the deficiency in service that does not mean that the complaint of the appellant is also false. Hence, it is prayed by the appellant that the appeal may kindly be accepted and held the OP deficient in service and liable to pay Rs.5500/- on account of mental harassment and Rs.2200/- as costs of litigation.

8.         The complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated 20.5.2010 passed by the learned District Forum and submits that the complainant had got three cable TV connections from the OP and on 3.1.2010 at about 11.30 PM the cable network was out of order. Again on 7.1.2010 at 9 PM the cable supply was totally disconnected. Regarding this, the complainant duly lodged a complaint with the OP and requested to remove the defects immediately and to make the cable network functional but the OP failed to make it functional in time. It was further submitted by the complainant that the employees of the OP also misbehaved with the complainant. Hence due to this act of OP, the deficiency in service on the part of OP has been proved beyond any doubt but the learned District Forum has wrongly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

9.       The learned counsel for the OP submits that all the allegations made by the complainant are baseless and false as the cable network was upgraded and also converted from analog to digital and the entire Sector 36 cable network was on fiber optic. Therefore, this fault in transmission line not in the control of OP due to multiple factors like mischief by bad elements, theft of cable wires, natural calamities, pilferage by kundi connections but all the complaints, when received are duly attended and rectified by the staff of OP during normal working hours and there were no abnormal delay in restoring the service.  The transmission of the cable network was normal in the locality of the complainant during the time mentioned by the complainant in the complaint and the learned District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint, while observing these facts that the complainant had failed to produce any proof/document in support of his contentions. Moreover, the complainant had failed to produce any affidavit of any consumer/resident of his locality to prove that most of the time cable network remains defective, the services rendered by the OP was of a poor quality and there is no other complaint regarding defective cable network and poor services of the OP has been received by the learned District Forum.

10.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that the OPs have rendered the services to the complainant by removing the defect and by making the cable network operational without delay. Thus as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. We are in consonance with the order passed by the learned District Forum, which is just, fair and proper. Hence no interference is called for. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the order passed by the learned District Forum without any order as to costs.

11.          Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

10^th November, 2010.