This case is coming for final hearing on 08.09.2014 in the presence of Sri Y.N.Srinivas Advocate for the Complainant and Opposite Party called absent and set exparte and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on behalf of the Bench)

1.     The case of the Complainants is that the 2^nd Complainant is the father of 1^st Complainant and the 1^st Complainant purchased a LED Television on 23.03.2012 of L.G. Company from Sono Vision, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam bearing Model No.32LV3000, S.No.112PLZU040493 for an amount of Rs.36,000/- with warranty period of one year from the date of its purchase.  The Opposite party is a cable operator providing cable network services in the city of Visakhapatnam in the name and style of “Sreedevi Cable Network” (SDV) and telecasting the channels through a set top box by collecting necessary charges from its subscribers.  The Complainants stated that till the month of September, 2013 the Opposite party had been collecting Rs.150/- towards monthly subscription charges from the Complainants recently but they are revised. On 28.07.2013 one of the technicians of the Opposite party had visited the area of Ambedkar Nagar and Shanti Nagar of NAD Kotha Road, Visakhapatnam and carried out repairs/maintenance works to its cable network.  In that process one of the technicians of the Opposite party had hurled the SDV cable wire on the live wire (electrical main wire pole) in a very rash and negligent manner, knowing pretty well that it would result in damage of picture tubes of TV’s/LEDs/LCDs.  All of a sudden, high voltage had passed through the set top boxes and resulted in burning of picture tube i.e., MAINHLP PCB part of the Complainants’ LED TV.  Not only the Complainants TV/LED, but also few more picture tubes of others have burnt on account of hurling cable wire on the live wire on the very same day.  Then, immediately, the Complainants requested him to look in to the matter.  Accordingly, one of the technicians had visited to the house of the Complainants and inspected the LED TV and thereby promised to carryout the repair at its cost, after discussing the same with the management.  The Complainants have been repeatedly calling the opposite party requested to carryout the repairs, but there was no response from the Opposite party.  Then, the Complainants approached LG Authorised Service Centre, i.e., Live Satellite Service, Dwarakanagar and obtained a quotation for carrying out repairs.  The approximate estimate that was given by the said service centre was Rs.10,566/-.  It was also informed by the Complainants to the Opposite party but there was no reply.  Then, the Complainants got it repaired through the aforesaid servicing centre at a cost of Rs.10,552/-.  After carrying out repair works the Complainants issued a legal notice on 19.08.2013 calling upon to the Opposite party to make repayment of the actual cost incurred together with damages and costs.  But the Opposite party intentionally refused to receive the said legal notice and returned the same, these acts of the Opposite party clearly shows negligent attitude and deficiency of service on its part and more over because of the acts of the Opposite party the Complainants suffered lot of mental agony, tension and trauma which even cannot be compensated in terms of money.  Hence this Complaint to direct the Opposite parties;

a) to refund the amount of Rs.10,552/-

b) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards besides costs of Rs.5,000/-.

2.     On the other hand, the Opposite party called absent even after notices served by the Forum and there is no representation, hence set exparte.

3.     At the time of enquiry, the Complainants filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A6.  Heard the counsel of the Complainants who reiterated his version.

4.     In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainant entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

5.     Exhibit A1 is the receipt issued by the Sono Vision regarding the purchase of LED TV of L.G Company and Ex.A2 is the subscription of Rs.150/- received from the Complainants by the Opposite party three in numbers.  These receipts clearly shows that consideration paid by the Complainants to the Opposite party to telecast the challans through set top box.  Ex.A3 quotation issued by the serving centre i.e., Live satellite Servicing centre, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.10,566/-. Ex.A4 is the VAT/Retail Invoice issued by the LG Authorised Centre i.e., Live Satellite service, Visakhapatnam for an amount of Rs.10,552/-. Ex.A5 is the legal notice issued by the Complainants on 19.08.2013 to pay an amount of Rs.10,552/- towards repair charges.  Ex.A6 is the returned postal cover of the legal notice where in it was clearly endorsed as addressee not claimed in Sl.No.6 i.e., unclaimed was put a tick mark. 

6.     The version of the Complainants is that a technician of the Opposite party visited and carried out the maintenance works to its cable network, they had hurled the SDV cable wire on the live wire i.e., electrical main wire pole which results in burning of picture tube of LED TV because of high voltage had passed through the set top box.  To carryout the repair works to the LED television the Complainants requested the Opposite party but as there was no response, he approached LG Authorised Servicing Centre and got the television repaired and paid an amount of Rs.10,552/- and after that the Complainants also issued a legal notice to the opposite party for repayment of the actual cost incurred to the repair of LED TV but the legal notice was returned with an endorsement ”unclaimed”, which clearly shows the negligent attitude and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party.  More over, the Opposite party even after receiving the notices from the Forum not choose to contest the matter, called absent and set exparte.  Hence, in our view, the Opposite party not rectified the problem which occurred because of its negligence attitude, during the maintenance of cable connections.  Hence, the Opposite party is liable to pay the repair charges of Rs.10,552/- to the Complainants.

7.     Because of the acts of the Opposite party, there is no doubt that the Complainants suffered financially and mentally and after several requests made by the Complainants for repair of the LED TV as there was no response from the Opposite party, they got it repaired, which clearly shows the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, hence the Complainants are entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards compensation, besides costs.

        Accordingly, this point is answered.

8.     In the result, the Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay Rs.10,552/- within three months, failing which pay the same with 9% p.a. interest from the date of order till the date of payment.  The Opposite party further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation besides costs of Rs.1,000/-.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of September, 2014.

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                        Visakhapatnam

Consumer Complaint No:25/2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Party: NIL

   Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

Member                                                     President (FAC)

                                                        District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//