Jomon filed a consumer case on 28 Oct 2022 against Sun direct T v in the Idukki Consumer Court. The case no is CC/122/2020 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Nov 2022.
DATE OF FILING : 22.9.2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2022
Present :
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT
SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER
SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER
CC NO.122/2020
Between
Complainant : Jomon, S/o. Kuriakose,
Kadalipparambil House,
Machiplavu P.O.,
Machiplavu, Mannamkandam.
And
Opposite Party : The Manager,
Sun Direct TV,
Eliza Plaza, Mangattukavala,
Thodupuzha P.O., Pin – 685 584.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
O R D E R
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
1. This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 (the Act, for short). Complaint averments are briefly discussed hereunder :
On 19.7.2020, complainant had renewed the subscription for 10 months of a TV network, namely, Sun Direct TV, taken in the name of his friend, Salin A.J., consumer number being 41308868086, by payment of subscription charges of Rs.2,190/- (Rs.219/- per month). However, opposite party, who is a dealer of Sun Direct TV had given network connection only for 1 month, There was no response from opposite parties, despite repeated demands and requests for renewal of subscription for a further period of 9 months since subscription charges for 10 months were already remitted. Subscription charges paid for 9 months were not returned also. Complainant submits that this is unfair trade practice. He prays for return of Rs.1,971/- from opposite party, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for unfair trade practice and another Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.
(cont....2)
- 2 -
2. Opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version contending as hereunder :
According to opposite party, complaint is not maintainable in law or upon facts. Complainant is not a subscriber of the TV channel network, dealership of which is given to opposite party. There is no privity of contract between complainant and opposite party. No money was received from complainant for renewal of subscription or otherwise from complainant. Opposite party has no connection or nexus with consumer number mentioned in the complaint. probabilities are that another dealer having dealership of Sun Direct may have been dealt with, by complainant. Opposite party is an unnecessary party. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. Complaint is to be dismissed with costs.
3. Case was then posted for steps and finally for evidence. Though repeated opportunities were given, complainant has not appeared or given evidence, by filing proof affidavit or otherwise. Since no evidence was tendered by complainant, counsel for opposite party submitted that opposite party is also not given any evidence. Hence evidence was closed. Due to absence of complainant or his representative, we have only heard the learned counsel appearing for opposite parties. Now the points which arise for consideration are :
1) Whether opposite party had received Rs.2,190/- from complainant towards renewal of net work TV subscription of his friend Salin ?
2) Whether there was any unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party ?
3. Reliefs and costs ?
4. Point Nos.1 and 2 are considered together :
Able counsel appearing for opposite party has reattriated the contentions raised in written version of opposite party. We have gone through the complaint and 2 documents produced along with it. One is a computer print out with regard to transfer of Rs.2,190/- dated 19.7.2020 and other payment and withdrawals made by complainant probably from his account. Second is a photo copy of computer print out relating to entries of the bank account of complainant, which also shows a transfer of Rs.2,190/- of even date. However, there is no evidence to show that the amount was transferred to the account of opposite party. We also notice that the so called friend, for whom payment was made by complainant, is not arrayed as additional complainant in this complaint. No authorisation from the said friend is (cont....3)
seen produced by complainant either. There is no evidence to show that complainant has paid Rs.2,190/- to opposite party for renewal of TV network, namely, Sun Direct, for his friend Salin A.J. That being so, we find that, opposite party cannot be held liable for any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed against opposite party. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
5. Point No.3 :
In the result, this complaint is dismissed, under the circumstances, without costs. Parties shall take back extra sets of copies produced, upon expiry of appeal period.
Pronounced by this Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2022
Sd/-
SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER
Sd/-
SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER
APPENDIX : Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.