IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 14thday of March, 2019.
Filed on 11-05-2018
Present
Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim,B.A,LLM (President)
2) Smt. Sheela Jacob,B.com,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.127/2018
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.V.P. Shaji 1. Sri.Santharam
Veluthara Veedu, Owner of Kuttanadu Cable Vision
Kuttamangalam P.O., Parekkadu Veedu
Kainakary Vadakku, Kuttamangalam P.O.
Ward-14, Alappuzha Ward- 14, Alappuzha
2. Sri.Sunil
Kuttanadu Cable Vision Operator,
Puthenparambil Veedu,
Kuttamangalam P.O.
Kainakary Vadakku Ward- 3
Alappuzha.
O R D E R
SRI.E.M. MUHAMMED IBRAHIM (PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE)
This case is based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short, are as follows:-
The complainant purchased one T.V. set and thereafter make an application to get cable T.V. connection but even after the elapse of several months the opposite party has not given any cable connection. He contacted the contractor Sri.Krishnakumar and Sunil who are the cable T.V. operators on several occasions. Though they promised to give connection not given any connection till date. Even after the elapse of years the opposite party has given cable T.V. connection to the complainant. Though there is cable T.V. connection at two of his neighboring residences, the opposite party has not chosen to give cable T.V. connection to the complainant’s residence. In the circumstances complainant is of the view that the opposite party has not been giving connection to his residence at the instigation of some of his neighbours who are on enimical terms with him. The complainant is a Vanchiveed worker and his employer hired one boat by name Lena and the employer obtained cable T.V. connection by using the identity card of the complainant. While giving cable T.V. connection the operator Sri. Sunil obtained Rs.2800/- from him and given cable T.V. connection at the house boat for which Rs.1,000/- was received from him towards monthly rent and the said Sunil claims that some amount is due from him towards the value of set top box and this fact has been noted in the monthly subscription book. However even after 5 months the cable T.V. connection installed at the house boat has not shown any signal. The opposite party attempted to repair the same but could not getting repaired. However after 3 months his employer has returned the boat by completing the term of rent agreement. The complainant has obtained cable T.V. connection at house boat by spending money and set top box purchased for the said boat is with him. By utilizing the said set top box the complainant requested the opposite party to give cable T.V connection at his residence. The complainant has also filed application during the month of June 2017 and thereafter he has been walking up and down but till date the opposite party has not given the cable T.V. connection. According to the complainant the opposite party has given cable T.V. connection at his neighboring residence which situates just 20 meters east to his residence and therefore the opposite party need not spent any amount to give cable T.V. connection to his residence. Usually monthly subscription for the cable T.V. connection is Rs.135/- but the opposite party has been realizing Rs.2,00/- from him which is in excess of the monthly subscriptions. The above act and omission on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant sustained heavy mental agony and financial loss. Therefore the complainant prays to direct the opposite party to give cable T.V. connection to his residence by using the set top box available with him and also prays to award compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and his costs.
3. In response to the notice opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance. However they have not filed any version till date. Hence the Forum has decided to proceed with the matter without any version and posted for recording evidence.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit with 2 documents though the copy of the proof affidavit was sent to the opposite party by registered post as directed by this Forum O.P. 1 & 2 neither turned up nor co-operated with trial. Hence evidence of the complainant was recorded and got marked as Ext.A1 and A2 documents.
5. The unchallenged averments in the proof affidavit coupled with Ext.A2 letter would show that the complainant filed an application for getting cable T.V. connection to his residence by utilizing the set top box which he purchased for the purpose of taking cable T.V. connection in the house boat by name Lena. But the complainant has not paid any amount as consideration for the service to be rendered by the opposite party cable T.V. connection for giving connection to the residence of the complainant. It is further clear from the averments in the affidavit that an amount of Rs.2,00/- is due to the opposite party as per Ext.A1 subscription card. As the complainant has not paid any consideration for the service sought from the opposite party, the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer and the case of the complainant would not come within the definition of a consumer complaint. As the complainant has not paid any consideration for the cable T.V. connection sought for in this case is not entitled to file any complaint for the non-providing cable T.V. connection at his residence before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable at all and only to be dismissed.
In the result the complaint stands dismissed being not maintainable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 14th day of March, 2019.
Sd/- Sri.E.M. Muhammed Ibrahim (President)
Sd/-Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Letter dtd 15-06-2017
Ext.A2 - Subscription Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
