CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PALAKKAD, KERALA
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2012.
Present: Smt. Seena. H, President
: Smt. Preetha. G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi. A.K, Member Date of filing: 30/12/2011
CC / 2/2012
Madhavankutty.M,
S/o.(L) Thekkeppattu Parameswaran Nair, - Complainant
'Vaiga', Sreenivas Garden,
Kallikkad, Palakkad.
(BY ADV.M.Abdul Kaleel)
Vs
The Area Marketing Manager,
Officer in Charge,
Asianet Satellite Communication (Ltd), - Opposite party
Lakshmi Garden, 15/185,
Matha Kovil Street, Sulthanpet
(BY ADV.P.P.Gopalakrishnan & M.P.Ambika)
O R D E R
BY SMT. BHANUMATHI. A.K, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows:
At the time of living at Pattikkara the complainant has availed a connection from opposite party paying the fixed rate for one year. When the complainant and family shifted their residence to Kallikkadu, he contacted the opposite party for shifting their connection from Pattikkara to Kallikkadu. The complainant was informed that the area where the complainant's house is situated, is under Branch I and they will do needful action to shift the cable connection from Pattikkara to Kallikkadu. After repeated demands the field staff of the opposite party inspected the area and informed that the cable connection could not be established and they will inform the facts to the higher officers. But no action was taken. The family members of the complainant faced many difficulties due to the non availability of cable connection.
The complainant is having a mother-in-law aged 84. The wife of the complainant has to look after her mother every time. They have no entertainment other than to go through various channels broad casted by the opposite party through cable connection.
The act of opposite party caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant.
So the complainant seeking an order directing the opposite party to re-establish the connection and pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh as compensation.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed version.
It is admitted by opposite party is that the complainant was having a Digital Cable Connection at Pattikkara and had sought transfer of the said connection to Sreenivasa Gardens, Kallikkad. At the time of request the network infrastructure was not fully developed in the area to provide digital connection where the transfer was sought. The signal in the said area was very weak and opposite party was unable to provide digital connection to the complainant. The opposite party had assured the petitioner that a new amplifier would be installed in the month of January 2012 and immediately thereafter connection would be provided to the complainant. The complainant was not willing to wait. The opposite party has no responsibility to provide connection in those areas where there is no net work. Opposite party has raised a contention that the complainant has not paid the shifting charges. As per clause 5 of the terms and conditions, the subscriber is entitled to get his connection transferred only on payment of shifting charges. The opposite party has also denied the jurisdiction of the Forum to entertain the complaint.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The evidence adduced consists of testimony of PW1, Ext.A1 to A5 and B1 to B2.
Heard the parties.
Issues to be considered are:
Whether the complaint is maintainable before the Forum or not?
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
If so, what is the relief and cost?
Issue No.I
Opposite party contents that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since the clause 15 of the Terms and conditions Provide jurisdiction only to court at Trivandrum for any disputes between the customer and the company. As per the Consumer Protection Act Forum is entitled to entertain the complaint having cause of action wholly or in part arise in the limits of the district. Here the branch office of the opposite party situates at Palakkad. Moreover Ext.A2 is the cash receipt which is issued by Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd, Palakkad 2. As per section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, Act not in derogation of any other law:- “The provision of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force”. So the complaint is maintainable before the Forum.
Issue No.II & III
Complainant seeking compensation from opposite party for deficiency in service.
When the complainant was residing at Pattikkara, Palakkad, he was having a cable connection of the opposite party. When the complainant has changed his residence to the present address he requested the opposite party to shift the cable connection to the new house. But even after repeated demands from the petitioner the respondent denied to re-establish the cable connection. The complainant has paid the subscription for the year August 2011 to July 2012. Because of the unavailability of the cable connection the complainant as well as his family members suffered much.
Opposite party admits that the complainant was having a digital cable connection at Pattikkara and had sought transfer of the said connection to the present address. Earlier the opposite party has taken only one contention that at the time of request of shifting the connection the infrastructure was not fully developed.
Subsequently the opposite party has filed an additional version with the contention that the complainant has not paid shifting charge as per the terms and conditions. It is true that under clause 5 of the terms and conditions, which is marked as Ext.B1, a subscriber is entitled to get his connection transferred only on payment of shifting charges. There is no evidence on the side of opposite party to show that they have informed the complainant about the terms and conditions. Also there is nothing to show that they have demanded shifting charges from the complainant. At the time of cross examination the complainant submitted that opposite party did not demand any shifting charge from the complainant. Intimation also not given.
Opposite party raised a contention that the complainant did not take action to opt dish TV for solving the trouble of the family members due to the non availability of the cable connection. In the month of January 2012 a new amplifier was installed in the area where the transfers was sought and opposite party is ready to provide digital connection to the complainant.
While cross examining complainant submitted that he has already paid towards the subscription for one year. It is evident from Ext.B2 document an amount of Rs.3,639/- was paid by the complainant towards the subscription charges for one year that is from August 2011 to July 2012. So the complainant did not take dish TV connection. He also submitted that now it is not necessary to get the cable connection transferred as he has taken another fresh connection.
There is no dispute regarding the payment made by the complainant. Eventhough the complainant has paid for one year he has enjoyed the same for four months only.
The counsel for the opposite party argued that in the area where the complainant sought connection, the signal was very weak and opposite party was unable to provide digital connection to the complainant. The complainant produced Ext.A5 series document to contradict this argument. Ext.A5 series shows that there are many persons having cable connection of the opposite party in the locality where the complainant had sought transfer of cable connection.
From the above discussion we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three thousand five hundred only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of August, 2012.
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha.G.Nair
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Provisional Receipt STB +1 year dt.9/1/10 (Original).
Ext.A2 – Cash Receipt Rs.3639/-dt.09/07/2011 (Original)
Ext. A3 – Telephone bill .
Ext. A4 – E-mail communication to transfer of connection dt.06/12/2011
Ext.A5 series-Bills
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Ext.B1- Application form for cable connection (Specimen)
Ext. B2- Copy of daily work report dt.10/01/2012
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1-Madhavankutty.M
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
