1.The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he availed Cable Connection to his TV from the Ops vide Consumer No.60957920 w.e.f. Dec., 2011 by depositing Rs.2500/- as advance and the OP-1 through its Borigumma unit connected 3 pieces of wire to the TV of the complainant from main junction at the time of giving new connection.  It is submitted that due to connection of 3 pieces of wire, the TV display was not clear and the technician of the Ops assured to connect a single wire soon but in vain.  After 3 months of connection, the complainant requested the service man of OP.1 at Borigumma to connect a new piece of wire as the display of the TV was not clear but in spite of assurances the OP.1 remained silent and hence the complainant sent email to OP.2 on 13.1.2016 communicating his grievance but to no action.  It is further submitted that the Ops being aggrieved disconnected the facilities arbitrarily on 13.1.2016 without any intimation and the complainant sent email on 17.1.2016 to OP.2 requesting restoration of the facilities but all the Ops remained silent.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops for immediate restoration of facilities to the house of the complainant and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant was provided with analog cable service TV and the wire connected to the TV was duly approved by ISI but due to technical fault in the TV, the complainant might not have got a clear picture.  It is contended that the complainant had never made any complaint regarding the poor vision in the TV.  Denying receipt of Rs.2500/- from the complainant as advance, the Ops contended that the complainant is a defaulter and hence he was debarred from the cable service.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, it is an admitted fact that, the complainant was supplied with cable connection by the Ops vides Consumer No.60957920 w.e.f. Dec., 2011 and the said connection was snapped by Ops on 13.01.2016.  The complainant stated that he obtained the connection by depositing Rs.2500/- with Ops but the OP.1 through its branch at Borigumma connected 3 pieces of wire to the TV from main junction at the time of giving new connection for which the display was not clear.  The complainant at that time was assured to be provided with a single wire by the Ops but in spite of approach the OP.1 did not connect a single wire.

5.                     The Ops through their counter stated that they have neither received Rs.2500/- from the complainant nor provided 3 pieces of wire to supply cable connection to the TV of the complainant.  Non receipt of Rs.2500/- by the Ops while giving the new connection during Dec., 2011 in our view is far from truth as because every cable network company generally collects some amount towards security dep..osit from the customers.  As such there is some truth behind the contention of the complainant that the Ops have received Rs.2500/- from him while giving new connection.

6.                     The Ops further stated that due to fault in the TV, the display was not clear.  A simple say in this regard by the Ops will not do.  The technician deployed at Borigumma could only say whether the TV had technical problem or due to 3 pieces joint wire supplied by the Ops, the supply was not good.  The Ops have not filed any affidavit of that technician clarifying their position that due to fault in TV the display was not good.  Further the counter filed in this case is unverified by the Ops and hence the contentions placed through counter by the Ops bear a little importance.

7.                     Further the Ops stated that the complainant is a defaulter but failed to file the accounts details of the complainant from Dec., 2011.  Had the Ops filed accounts statement of the complainant, it would have been clear whether the complainant was a defaulter and he had not deposited Rs.2500/- as advance at the time of availing new connection.  On the other hand the complainant has filed copy of Money Receipt issued by the Ops for the month of Dec., 2015 through which he has deposited Rs.207/- towards December, 2015 month subscription.  As his connection was snapped on 13.1.2016, it became crystal clear that the complainant was not at all a defaulter in paying the dues to the Ops.

8.                     The Ops stated that the complainant has never intimated them regarding his problem.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has sent an email dt.13.1.2016 requesting connection of single wire to his TV, the copy of which is available on record but the Ops snapped the connection immediate after receipt of email.  Further the complainant has sent another email on 17.1.2016 requesting restoration of connection as it was disconnected without his knowledge but the Ops did not listen.  If the cable display was not clear, the complainant must have lodged at least oral complaints before the local representative of the Ops at Borigumma.  Hence the contention of the Ops that the complainant had never intimated them regarding his problem is far from truth as we found.

9.                     From the above facts, it was ascertained that the cable display of the complainant was not clear due to connection of 3 pieces of wire to the house from the main junction but not due to technical defect in the TV.  Further the complainant was not a defaulter and must have deposited some amount towards security deposit as per norm with the Ops while taking new connection but the Ops without redressing the grievances of the complainant, have arbitrarily disconnected the facilities and thereby committed gross deficiency in service for which the complainant is suffering.  Hence the complainant is entitled for immediate restoration of facilities and the Ops are to be directed to supply the cable network connection through a single wire to the house of the complainant with a new Set up box at their costs.  Further due to such inaction of the Ops, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation besides costs.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to reconnect the cable line through new single piece wire with a new Set UP box at their own costs to the house of the complainant and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)