This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 11-4-2008 in the presence of Sri.V.Rama Rao, Advocate for the complainant and of Sri.K.Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for opposite party No-1 & 2 ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha,Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;
2. The complainant is a business man and obtained cable T.V.Connection from opposite parties by paying monthly subscription of Rs.70/- and the opposite parties transmitting 15 to 16 channels, suddenly the opposite parties enhanced the subscription amount from Rs.70/- to 100/- but they did not transmitting more channels than 15 to 16 channels and on 18-1-2007 the opposite parties disconnected the cable connection of the complainant instead of collecting the subscription amount for the month of December, 2006 then the complainant approached the opposite parties and many problems of the subscribers were brought to the notice of the opposite parties but there is no response from the opposite parties as such the complainant suffered inconvenience in watching news and entertainment channels. Finally the complainant gave a written representation to the opposite parties on 27-2-2007 and requested to restore the cable connection but the opposite parties did not respond to restore the cable connection of the complainant and the complainant further alleged that the attitude of the opposite parties are amounts to deficiency of service and as such approached the forum for redressal and prayed to direct the opposite parties to restore the cable connection of the complainant and to reduce the monthly subscription amount from Rs.100/- to 70/- and to display the number of channels that are being telecast as on today and Rs.5,000/- towards damages.
3. Along with the complaint the complainant filed affidavit and also filed original bills (i) bill dated 27-12-2006 for Rs.100/- , issued by the opposite parties in the name of complainant (ii) bill dated 12-4-2005 for Rs.70/- issued by the opposite parties in the name of complainant (iii) bill dated 22-9-2005 for Rs.70/- issued in the name of complainant by the opposite parties (iv) subscription payment chart belonging to the complainant .(v) Xerox copy of letter dated 27-2-2007 addressed by the complainant to the opposite parties with acknowledgment
4. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsel and filed counter by denying the allegations made in the complaint.
5. In the counter the opposite parties admitted that they operating cable net work and transmitting various channels by collecting Rs.70/- per month as subscription and denied the other allegations made in the complaint and also stated that the opposite parties started Sri Sai Vigneswara Anjaneya Communication on 12-9-2005 for operating the cable T.V.net work , prior to that some other persons run by the cable net work business at Nelkondalpalli and they collect Rs.70/- per month as subscription, after the opposite parties entered into the business they were collected Rs.70/- per month. Further the opposite party stated that the main channels like ETV, ETV-2, ESPN , Star Sports, Gemini News, Gemini Music were changed into pay channels and hiking of prices of livewire and increasing the cost of implements, they were increased the subscription cost from Rs.70 to Rs.100. The opposite parties contended that they gave cable connection to the complainant on 12-9-2005 without collecting the deposit amount as he was old subscriber and the complainant paid the subscription amount of Rs.150/- on 1-6-2006 , Rs.100/- on 24-8-2006 and Rs.100/- on 27-12-2006 in total Rs.350/- and the complainant has to pay Rs.140/- for 2 months i.e., from 12-9-2005 to 12-11-2005 and the complainant has to pay Rs.1400/- for 14 months i.e., Rs.100/- per month from 12-11-2005 to 18-1-2007 i.e., till the date of disconnection. The complainant had paid only Rs.350/- out of Rs.1,540/- as such the complainant has to pay the balance due amount of Rs.1,190/- to the opposite parties as such the opposite parties requested the complainant for payment of due amount and the opposite parties alleged that the complainant threatened the opposite parties, when they demanded the dues and they waited for months together for payment of due amount, failing which, they disconnected the cable connection of the complainant and also contended that the complainant filed false complaint by suppressing the real facts, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of their respective averments both the parties filed written arguments. The complainant filed third party affidavit of Sri.P.P.Varaprasad and also filed Xerox copies of service charge receipts (i) receipt dated 13-9-2006 for Rs.70/-(ii) receipt dated 10-8-2006 for Rs.75/-(iii)receipt dated 10-7-2006 for Rs.75/- .(iv) receipt dated 10-9-2006 for Rs.75/- (v) receipt dated 10-10-2006 for Rs.75/-(vi) receipt dated 10-11-2006 for Rs.75/- (vii)receipt dated 17-12-2006 for Rs.75/-(viii) receipt dated 11-1-2007 for Rs.75/-, were issued by the opposite parties in the name of Sri.P.P.Varaprasad.
7. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed or not?
8. As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter the opposite parties are cable operators and they started Sri Sai Vigneswara Anjaneya Communication on 12-9-2005 for operating the cable T.V.Network and they collected Rs.70/- per month as subscription and after two months they enhanced the subscription fees from Rs.70/- to100/- per month due to changing of free channels into pay channels and increasing the cost of implements and cost of cable live wire and also contended that the complainant had paid Rs.350/- since 12-9-2005 and he is having dues for Rs.1190/- from the date of 12-9-2005 till the date of disconnection. On the other hand the complainant alleged that instead of payment of bill amount for the month of December, 2006 the opposite parties disconnected his cable connection on 18-1-2007 and also alleged that the opposite parties did not responded even after many representations made by him for restoration of his cable connection as such the complainant seeks redressal from the opposite parties . In view of the above versions put forth by both the parties and as seen from the third party affidavit and payment receipts issued by the opposite parties in the name of Sri.P.P.Varaprasad the opposite parties collected Rs.70/- on 13-9-2006 for subscription for the month of may,2006, and the opposite parties collected Rs.75/- from Sri.P.P.Varaprasad since 10-7-2006 till 11-1-2007 but the opposite parties collected Rs.100/- from the complainant as subscription amount on 27-12-2006 for the month of December, 2006. It clearly shows that the opposite parties collected different subscription amounts for the same period from their subscribers and it amounts unfair trade practice towards their subscribers and it is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant did not pay the subscription amount for months together as such they disconnected the cable connection of the complainant, in support of their contention the opposite parties did not file any proof to that effect and in the absence of any proof regarding the dues, this Forum cannot come to a conclusion and mere allegations are not sufficient to come to a conclusion, as such the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
9. In the result the C.C. is allowed in part and the opposite parties are directed to maintain uniformity in collecting the subscription amounts from their subscribers and to continue the cable connection of the complainant as usual and also directed to pay an amount of Rs.500/- towards damages and Rs.500/- towards costs of the complaint within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to my dictation, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 17 th day of April, 2008.
I/c President Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
-Nil-
I/c President Member District Consumers Forum, Khammam
