DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  30^th  day of March,  2022

Present         :   Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President.

                    :   Smt.Vidya A., Member.                                        

        :   Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member                          Date of Filing:  24/04/2017 

     CC/71/2017

Abraham T.C. @ Stephen,

S/o Chacko,

“Thoppil Veedu”, City Garden,

Pananchery Village, Pattikkadu,

Thrissur.

 (By Adv. P.C. Sivadas)                                                                        -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

1.         The Managing Partner,

M/s United T.V.,

Pazhaya Panchayath Building

Vallangi, Nenmara, Chittoor Taluk

Pin – 678 508.

2.         Kerala Communications Cable Ltd.,

            C.O.A. Bhavan, G-21, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi,

            Rep. by Secretary.      

Suppl.3.           Secretary,

Cable Operators’ Association,

                        Alathur Region,

                        C/o Haroon, Capricon Communications,

                        Chittilancherry, Alathur, Palakkad.                -           Opposite Parties

(O.P. 1 by Adv. R. Gangadharan

 O.P.2  by Adv. K. Suresh Kumar

 O.P.3  by Adv. N. Abhilash)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1.         Essentially, grievance of the complainant, an entrepreneur, is the refusal of the opposite parties to provide the complainant with 215 Set – Top – Boxes for ‘eking his livelihood’.

2.         Since a reading of the complaint did not inspire confidence as to the nature of the complaint being one contemplated under S. 2(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (under which the complaint was filed), we felt it pertinent to look into the said issue by framing a preliminary issue for consideration as to answer the concern.  Thereby the following issue was framed:

            “Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, based on the pleadings in the memorandum of complaint and versions,

1. this complaint is a complaint as contemplated under  the Act?
2. the complainant is a consumer as contemplated under the Act?
3. this Commission has got jurisdiction to try the dispute?”

3.         The complainant claims that he was a licensee having around 1000 cable connections, out of which 750 connections were transferred to a third party. Presently he is having around 215 connections. The 1^st opposite party is a Firm of around 70 cable operators availing subscriptions from constituent members including the complainant, who is a partner in the 1^st opposite party Firm, for providing functional assistance to operators in and around Nenmara. The complainant is entirely dependent on the 1^st opposite party for signals.

By 2012, when digitization was made mandatory, in-order to address and negotiate the terms and conditions put forward by media giants, cable operators of Kerala formed the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party availed membership in 2^nd opposite party organization for and on behalf of its subscribers, complainant included. It was a provision that the STB would be channelized to the end cable operators by the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party.

When the complainant sought for 215 STBs, his demand was refused by the opposite parties stating that the complainant was not a cable operator. STBs were provided to other operators who were subscribers to the 1^st opposite party. This has led to huge monetary losses for the complainant. Eventhough the complainant filed a suit as O.S. 135/2015 before the Munsiff’s Court, Chittur for availing the STBs, the suit was rendered infructuous. As providing the STBs to consumers were time bound process, complainant’s customers refused further services from him and he has suffered huge losses, which is quantified to Rs. 19,00,000/- for the purpose of this complaint.

Instead of assisting the complainant, the opposite parties cold shouldered him and presently the complainant is rendered income-less. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and sought for Rs. 19,00,000/- as compensation for loss of earnings.

4.         Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed their separate versions raising contentions hacking at the root of the complainant’s contentions.

                        The 1^st opposite party denied all the allegations in the complaint. Complainant being a partner of the 1^st opposite party is admitted. But the complainant was a defaulter when it came to taking share in capital expenditure. The 1^st opposite party had to bear his share of the investments. From 2008 onwards, the complainant had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the Deed of Partnership, whether it be by way of investment or by way of administration or management activities.

                        The Cable Operators Association within whose territory, the complainant falls is  Alathur COA. But the complainant was not a member to the same. Distribution of STBs were subject and conditional to memberships in local COA and 2^nd opposite party.

                        Over and above the summary already stated and some more, the 1^st opposite party alleged that the complainant is a partner of the 1^st opposite party and not a consumer.

5.         2^nd Opposite Party  pleaded total ignorance of the complaint pleadings, while the supplemental 3^rd opposite party filed detailed version in line and tune with the version filed by the 1^st opposite party.  

6.         Pleadings averred by the complainant give rise to the following conclusions:

i.          That the complainant was a service provider.

ii.         That a group of similarly placed service providers came together to form 1^st opposite party, a united front to facilitate business.

iii.        With digitization, in-order to address even larger challenges, opposite party 2 was formed by those like complainant/1^st opposite party.

iv.        STBs for end user consumers to be provided by grass root service providers would be routed through 1^st opposite party by the 2^nd opposite party.

v.         Complainant’s demand for 215 STBs were denied by the 1^st opposite party, leading to loss of earnings for the complainant.

vi.        Aggrieved thereby, after his suit being dismissed, this complaint was filed.

vii.       The complainant seeks Rs. 19,00,000/- as “loss of earnings(sXmgnÂ\ãw)” since his business suffered losses as the STBs were not supplied to him.

7.         In whichever angle one peruse the pleadings, there is not an iota of fact that would lead to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. In fact, he was a part and parcel of the network that is created by the opposite parties for rendering TV connections to consumers. He was at the grass-root of the vast network, like many other service providers, from whom the individual consumers availed connection. What the complainant have with the opposite parties is a business relation-ship, be it agency or principal-to-principal or franchisee mode. But surely not  a Consumer of the opposite parties.

8.         This complainant is, therefore, not a consumer as contemplated under the Act, nor this complaint a ‘Complaint’ as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence this Commission does not have locus standi to entertain this complaint. Consequently, we dismiss the complaint.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

            Pronounced in open court on this the 30^th  day of March, 2022.

                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                     Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

 Sd/-

Vidya.A

                    Member   

                          Sd/-

                                                                                          Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                Member

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.

Fair copy on        :  21/04/2022                                                                                      Forwarded/By Order,   

Despatched on:                                                                                                                Senior Superintendent