BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.332 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.09.2014

Date of Decision :12.03.2015

K.K.Randhawa, aged about 61 years son of Kartar Chand R/o Mehul Market, Raja Garden, Gadaipur, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. The Director Fastway (F.W.) C/o Shivalik Cable, Network Pvt Ltd, 6th Floor, Grand Mall, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

2. Pardeep Arora (Authorized Representative) C/o Shivalik Cable, Network Pvt Ltd, 6th Floor, Grand Mall, Near BMC Chowk, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.BP Inder Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rakesh Dhir Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the opposite party No.2 is authorized representative of fastway cable network which is being run under the direction of opposite party No.1. The complainant who is residing in the area of Raja Garden, Gadaipur, Jalandhar and opposite party No.2 is also working in the area wherein the complainant is residing. The complainant who is investor in the share market in different products and invested huge amount in the business of trading of share in different companies and in this connection it is necessary for the complainant upto-date about the share market. Opposite party No.2 approached the complainant and instigated him to install fastway set top box and also instigated that this cable network provides upto-date financial condition of share market. Then the complainant make-up his mind to install fastway cable set top box. At that time opposite party No.2 proclaimed that he is the exclusive authorized representative of fastway set top box and all the channels are working by the direction of opposite party No.1. At the time of installation of set top box, the opposite party No.2 demanded Rs.500/- from the complainant asking that this amount is refundable and this amount be treated as security amount which is totally refundable and adjustable but till today the opposite parties did not issue any receipt regarding payment of Rs.500/- even after repeated request by the complainant. After few days of the installation of the set top box, the set top box was not working properly and the complainant number of times approached to party No.2 in connection with not proper working of set top box which was installed by the opposite party No.2 but all in vain. Even, set top box which was installed by the opposite party No.2 was not working, the complainant is regularly paying the rent as and when demand by the opposite party No.1 through their agents. In the month of August, 2014, when Pardeep Arora met with the complainant who came to collect monthly rent from the complainant and after paying the amount of Rs.500/- to him, when the complainant inquire regarding set top box which was not working properly then Pardeep Arora flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant and openly stated that he and his association does not bother any complaint and forced the complainant to pay rent in routine. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him compensation which the complainant had lost due to not proper working of the set top box. He has also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony.

2. Upon notice opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, mis-use of process of law, concealment of material facts, want of cause of action etc. They pleaded that the real facts are that the daughter and the son-in-law of the complainant are practicing lawyers and the complainant is using their influence only to extract money from the opposite parties by filing this false and frivolous complaint on the basis of concocted facts which are not maintainable in the eyes of law. They denied that opposite party No.2 is authorized representative of M/s Fastway Cable Network. They further pleaded that the opposite party No.2 never pressurized or instigated the complainant to install fastway cable set top box whereas installation of set top box is mandatory by each and every customer of cable network as directed by the ministry of information and broad casting. They admitted that complainant deposited Rs.500/- as security for set top box which is refundable but denied that same is adjustable. They further pleaded that complainant has not paid the charges regularly and only in order to usurp the charges pending against the complainant, had filed the present complaint. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A and evidence of the opposite parties closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Counsel for the complainant contended that set top box installed by the opposite parties is not working properly and as such the complainant who is doing the business of trading in shares of different companies could not upto-date himself about the share market. He further contended that opposite party No.2 did not issue any receipt regarding payment of Rs.500/- inspite of repeated requests. He further contended that number of times, complainant approached opposite party No.2 in connection with defective set top box but all in vain. He further contended that the non working of set top box properly constitute deficiency in service. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Harbet P.Lingham "Bethany" Vs. Astro Vision and other, Appeal No.07/97 decided by Hon'ble State Commission of Delhi on 27.4.2007 and The Manager Director, Intermedia Cable Communications Pvt Ltd Vs. Amrapalishree Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd, First Appeal No.A/06/106, decided by Hon'ble State Commission, Maharashtra, Mumbai on 7.12.2011. We have carefully considered the contentions advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. There is no dispute regarding the law laid down in the above cited authorities. In the present complaint, the main grievance of the complainant is regarding non working of set top box properly. So far as amount of security of Rs.500/- is concerned, the opposite parties in their written reply have admitted that Rs.500/- was deposited by complainant as security of set top box which is refundable. Further according to opposite parties, the complainant has not paid the charges regularly and only in order to usurp the charges pending against the complainant, has filed the present complaint. The complainant has himself produced receipts regarding payments to Shivalik Cable Network Pvt Ltd Ex.C1 to Ex.C4. So it means that the person collecting monthly charges from the complainant used to issue payment receipts to the complainant. So only dispute between the parties is regarding the set top box. According to the complainant, the same is not working properly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that daughter and son-in-law of the complainant are practicing lawyers and they have filed the present complaint only to extract money from the opposite parties by filing this false complaint, whereas the set top box is working properly. In case the set top box was working properly, the complainant would not have filed the present complaint falsely alleging that set top box is not working properly. He served legal notices Ex.C5 and Ex.C6 before filing the present complaint but no reply is shown to have been sent by opposite parties to the above said notices. We do not find any convincing reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the set top box of the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, free of cost. The complainant is also awarded Rs.2000/- in lump sum on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.03.2015 Member Member President