O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
1. The complainant sought an amount of Rs. 60/- towards excess amount collected by the opposite party and Rs. Rs. 50,000/- towards damages for mental agony.
2. The allegations in the complaint in brief are that he obtained set top box connection from the opposite party by paying Rs. 2,500/- and the opposite party made him to believe that they would collect an amount Rs. 125/- towards monthly charges. The set top box connection made available to him on 02.09.2013 at Injaram Village of Tallarevu Mandal. But the opposite party has not issued any receipt towards the set top box. The service boys of opposite party are collecting Rs. 140/- per month and passing receipts for the same without any particulars therein. When he questioned the collection boys of the opposite party replied him that Rs. 15/- is towards tax. But the receipt do not disclose any such tax.
3 The complainant issued notice for which the opposite party issued reply with false allegations. Thus he sought above said amount for deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
4 The opposite party filed its written version denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them they are carrying on business at Yanam and the complaint transaction also took place there and hence this Forum has no Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The complainant entered into rental agreement on 02.09.2013 and it’s for a period of 3 years and the complainant agreed for the terms and conditions stipulated therein. But contrary those terms the complainant made all bald allegations. It is also their case even at the time of giving connection they specifically informed that the tariff for digital signal is Rs. 140/- per months and having the agreed for the same the complainant obtained service. At no point of time they agreed to give signal at Rs. 125/- per month.
5 Now the points for determination are:
- Whether this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- If so, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount as sought by him?
6. Point No.1: The opposite party challenged the jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that they are carrying on business at Yanam and the agreement was also entered with them there. The opposite party did not choose to deny that the complainant is residing at Injaram Village of Tallarevu Mandal and they provided connection to him at Injaram Village. Thus when the complainant is receiving signals at Injaram Village of Yanam part of cause of action arose there at Injaram Village. Thus this Forum has Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
7 Point No.2: The main allegation in the complaint is that at the time of giving connection the opposite party informed him that the monthly rental charges are Rs.125/- only. But contrary to the same the collection boys of opposite party were collecting their Rs. 140/- from him, an excess of Rs. 15/- over the agreed amount of Rs. 125/- per month.
8 To substantiate his contention the complainant filed chief affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 receipts cum customer application, Ex.A2 & Ex.A3 office copy of notices, Ex.A4 postal acknowledgment and Ex.A5 reply notice.
9 The opposite party filed his chief affidavit reiterating the case in their written version.
10 The receipts exhibited under Ex.A1 would indicate that the opposite party was collecting Rs. 140/- per month. In this regard the complainant contends that the boys of opposite party were collecting Rs. 15/- excess towards tax and those particulars are not disclosed under Ex.A1 bills. But the said contention is repelled by the opposite party that the agreed amount is only Rs. 140/- per month. The complainant has not placed any material in support of his contention. The customer application would disclose the rental value of Rs. 2500/- is inclusive Rs. 500/- towards security deposit. On the face of denial that the opposite party didn’t agree for Rs.125/- per month towards service connection charges and agreed charges are only Rs.140/-, the complainant could not produce any material to buttress his contention. Hence in the absence of any such material the mere oral assertion of complainant is not enough. Hence under these circumstances there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.
11 Point No.3: In view of the finding rendered under point No.2, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
12. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 23rd day of March, 2015.
Sd/-xxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:
PW1: Sri Korupalli Satyanarayana Murthy [complainant]
For opposite party:
RW1: Sri Dantuluri Venkateswara Raju
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Receipt cum customer application
Ex.A2 Office copy of notice issued by complainant
Ex.A3 Office copy of notice issued by complainant
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.A5 Reply notice issued by opposite party.
For opposite party:- Nil
Sd/-xxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
