D o F : 19/12/09 D.o O : 27/09/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD C.C. 275/09 Dated this, the 27th day of September 2010 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER Kunhiraman Nambiar, S/o Kodoth Kunhambu Nair, : Complainant R/at Olakkara House, Odayamchal, Po.Padimaruthu, Hosdurg. (Adv.T.M.Jose,Hosdurg) 1.Managing Director, M/s Dish TV India Limited, B-10, Lawrence Road, Industrial Area, New Delhi –110035. (Adv.Srikanta Shetty,Kasaragod) : Opposite parties 2.M/s Rainbow Electricals, Koroth House, Chuzhali Po, Sreekandapuram, Taliparamba, Kannur Dt. ( Exparte) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT Complainant Sri.Kunhiraman Nambiar is a senior citizen, an ex-member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and a well-known social worker. He is the manager of old and reputed higher secondary School Kanhangad. He availed the DTH (Direct to Home) from the Ist opposite party through 2nd opposite party by executing SAF (Subscription Application Form). The complainant alleged that on 27/9/09 without any prior notice or intimation, the opposite parties arbitrarily deactivated the viewing card (V.C) No. 01501175907 provided to him. Thereafter complainant enquired with 2nd opposite party about this abrupt deactivation. After obtaining a complaint from the complainant one authorized technician from Ernakulam visited the complainant’s house on 8/10/09 and he inspected the viewing card and set Top Box. Thereafter he confirmed that there is no misuse, un prescribed use or piracy. He took the photos of viewing card and Set Top Box. Thereafter from 15/10/09 it was reactivated . Complainant also received a lawyer notice dtd.27/9/09 issued at the instance of Ist opposite party alleging that complainant misused his VC(viewing card) for unauthorized transmission of distribution of Dish TV signal which amount to theft / piracy punishable U/S 379 r/w 380 IPC. The notice stated that the act of unauthorized distribution of the signals also constituted offence U/S 63,68A. r/w Sec51 of the Copy Right Act 1957. By the said notice the complainant was directed to desist from the act of piracy and surrender VC and pay ` 5000/- per day as penalty w.e.f 28/6/06 which comes to ` 59,35,000/- on the date of notice. In response to the said notice complainant issued a reply through his lawyer on 19/10/09 denying the allegation of misusing the VC for theft and piracy as false and baseless and claimed ` 10,00,000/- towards damages he suffered. Since he intends to file a civil case for damages against the above highly defamatory notice, this complaint is for compensation for preventing him from watching the TV from 27/9/09 to 15/10/09 at the rate of ` 2000/- per day with cost of these proceedings. 2. The Ist opposite party contested the claim by filing version. 2nd opposite party though appeared directly at the first instance, subsequently neither filed version nor turned up to defend the case. Hence 2nd opposite party had to be set exparte. Ist opposite party contended inter alia, that on 26/9/09 at 6. 53 P.M they received an e-mail from the broad caster of the channel “ Star Cricket” ie ESPN software India Private limited directling them to deactivate the connection with VC No.01501175907 as it was involved in pirating the said channel through one cable TV operator named Thanalakshmi cable having its address Vadakipattai Pudukkottai Dt. According to opposite party in view of Regulation 8 of the Telecommunication (Broad Casting and Cable services) Interconnections (fifth amendment) regulation 2009 they are under an obligation to disconnect or terminate a connection of its subscriber within 10 minutes from the time it receives such instruction from a broad caster regarding piracy. Accordingly VC was deactivated. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for a dismissal of the complaint. 3. Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and Exts.A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the lawyer notice dtd.27/9/09 issued by Ist opposite party and Ext.A2 is its reply with a counter claim. Ext.A3 is the copy of the identity card issued by Secretary of Kerala Legislative Assembly to the complainant since he being an Ex-member of Kerala Legislative Assembly. On the side of opposite party affidavit is filed by one Rajat Gandhi legal representative of Ist opposite party. Exts.B1 to B5 marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused carefully. 4. The fact that the Viewing card was re-activated on 15/10/09 without any act of complainant itself would make it sufficiently manifest that the complainant has not indulged in any piracy as alleged by Ist opposite party. Had it been so they would not have re-activated it. 5. It is to be noted here that there is no explanation why STAR CRICKET channel, not other channels did come in to the TV screens connected with Thanalakshmi’s cable in Pudukkottai Dt. In TamilNadu state through the VC of the complainant if it was really used for piracy. Normally in one VC several channels can be viewed on the TV screen. 6. What has emerged from the above is that Dish TV did not institute any proceeding to prove that the complainant was guilty of theft or piracy of TV signal by allowing Thanalakshmi Cable to use the VC in Pudukkotta Dt. in Tamil Nadu State which is hundreds of kilometers away from the residence of complainant. Before deactivating the VC no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the complainant. Ist opposite party quickly acted upon seeking asylum on Regulations 8 of the 2009 Regulations cited supra. They even sent a registered lawyer notice claiming huge compensation @ ` 5000/- per day without verifying the veracity of the information alleged to have received from the broad caster. There is absolutely no clarification how Dish TV could decide its own case when the very allegation against the complainant was lodged by it. This Dish TV acted as a complainant as well as a judge without having any authority under any law to do so. 7. The provisions contained in the DTH for broad casting services (Standard of Quality of service and Redressal of Grievances) Regulations 2007 framed on 31/8/07 under TRAI Act 1997 provides as follows: “ No Direct to Home operator shall take off the air or discontinue exhibition of any channel without giving prior notice to the direct to home subscribers unless the disruption / discontinuance is caused by disturbance of weather, natural calamity or reasons beyond the control of the DTH operator.’ 8. No prior notice as envisaged under the Grievances rules 2007 cited above was given to the complainant before disconnection. At the same time the connection has been restored without any interference by the complainant. Therefore the act of disconnection is highly arbitrary and illegal. It amounts to violation of all canon of law and rules of natural justice. 9. For the reasons mentioned above we hold that Ist opposite party committed deficiency in their service and therefore liable to compensate the complainant for denying him the uninterrupted enjoyment of the TV from 27/9/09 to 15/10/09 (18 days). The amount claimed by the complainant is very reasonable ie ` 2000/- per day considering the claim of 1st Opposite Party in Ext.A1 notice that they are entitled for ` 5000/- per day. Therefore, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of ` 36,000/- to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by him due to the non viewing of TV channels without any cause. Opposite parties are also directed to pay ` 4000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite parties shall be further liable to pay interest @ 12% for ` 36,000/- from the date of complaint till payment. MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts; A1-27/9/09-copy of registered notice A2-19/10/09- reply notice A3- copy of identity card B1- special power of attorney B2-copy of license agreement B3-copy of TRAI notification B4-copy of e-mail B5-copy of Ext.A1 PW1-M.Kunhiraman Nambiar-complainant MEMBER PRESIDENT eva | 
