IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 20th day of January 2010 CC.48/2006 Valiya Veetil Ratheesh, Aratyhiparamba, Purachery, Ezhilode P.O. Complainant (Rep. byAdv.P.Prabhhakaran) The Managing Partner, Oracle Communications, Andamkovval, Kunhimangalam. Opposite party (Rep. by Adv.B.P.Saseendran) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to reconnect the supply with clear visible pictures and to waive the subscription till the date of reconnection with Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost. The complainant’s case is that he is a subscriber of opposite party’s establishment which is providing cable net work connection by depositing a sum of Rs.1500/- impressed by the offer of uninterrupted and prompt service and the complaint is regularly paying the monthly tariff till July 2005. During July 2005, the picture exhibition in his cable became blank and the complainant and his family members requested the opposite party to repair the same. But the opposite party never heard the complainant and hence the subscription during August and September 2005 was not paid by the complainant, when the staff of the opposite party came to collect the subscription by saying that he will pay the subscription only if picture supply is corrected and regularized. Again the complainant went to opposite party’s office and the opposite party promised to connect the supply line and also expressed his willingness to wave the subscription f or the period during which supply was not satisfactory. But the opposite party was not ready to comply his promise. Thereafter also the complainant contacted the opposite party but all are in vein. But instead of curing the defect the opposite party issued a notice to the complainant demanding to pay a sum of Rs.429/- before 15.12.2005 after waiving the subscription amount for July and August. On receipt of the notice complainant went to the opposite party’s office and he promised that problem will be cured within one week. But on 16.12.08, the complainant’s connection was disconnected Even though the complainant preferred a petition to cable association no action was taken by them. All the acts of opposite party amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice and the opposite party issued a reply with untenable contentions. Hence this complaint. On receiving notice from the Forum opposite party appeared through Adv.B.P.Saseendran and filed their version with the following contentions. The opposite party admits that the complainant is a subscriber of opposite party. The complainant is irregular in making monthly subscription and his father used to pay subscription when three or four month due after repeated request. The opposite party further admits that the clarity of the picture broadcasted through the cable during July and August 2005 was not satisfactory due to the old age of cables. Since the cables are old the opposite party decided to remove the entire cables within two months and completed the work during August 2005 and the opposite party voluntarily abandoned two months subscription form the customers. The complainant again failed to make subscription. Subsequent to August 2005 and his father used to make harash words to opposite party and his staff. Sop the opposite party issued a notice on 10.12.05 and the complainant’s father questioned about the issuance of notice and threatened the opposite party by using filthy words and the complaint and his father intimated the opposite party to disconnect the cable connection and the complainant has already availed another cable connection. The complaint is filed only to escape from the liability to pay subscription and hene the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8 and B1 to B6. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party had disconnected the cable connection without sufficient cause and hence he claimed Rs.5000/- as compensation with cost. In order to prove his case he has produced the following documents namely Ext.A1 which is the subscription entry passbook. A2 (a) and (b) are the receipts issued by opposite party for the subscription during July, August and September 2005. A3 is the demand letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant, A4 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by the complainant, A5 is the post receipt and acknowledgement card and A6 is the reply notice. The complainant contended that he has paid Rs.1500/- as deposit at the time of taking connection and during 2005 August and September the picture was not clear and hence he defaulted in payment of monthly subscription during that period. But the opposite party contended that Rs.1500/- was received by him as charge for giving connection and not as deposit. The complainant has not produced the receipt also. So the contention of the complainant that he has paid Rs.1500/- as deposit cannot be accepted. Regarding the other contention that during the month of July and August 2005 the picture has no clarity was admitted by opposite party by saying that it was so happened due to old age of the cable. He further contended that he has waived the subscription fee for the above two months and during that time he had replaced the entire cable in that area. The other contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not paid the subscription fee for the month of September, October and November. But the complainant has produced Ext.A2 (a) and (b) bills dt.21.8.05 and 2.10.05 through which he has paid subscri9ption for the month of July, August and September 2005. Even though the opposite party had disputed these bills, they have not produced the counterfoils of the bills to prove their contention. So the above dispute of opposite party can be discarded as such, since it seems to be genuine. So according to the above bills, the complainant has paid 3 months subscription. The opposite party himself admits that he has waived two months subscription due to poor quality of transmission. So the subscription paid for July and August can be considered as subscription for the month of October and November. So it can be seen that the complainant has paid the subscription fee up to and inclusive of the month of November 2005.Admittedly the opposite party has disconnected the connection on 16.12.2005 for non-payment of Subscription fee. So this act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of opposite party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant contended that he has already taken the DTH connection and he does not want reconnetion. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost from the opposite party and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Five hundred only)as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1& A2.Card No.223 and receipts issued by OP A3.Letter dt.10/12/05 issued by OP A4.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A5. & 6.Postal receipt and AD & Reply notice A7. & 8.Cash bill and copy of subscription application form issued by Royal Electricals dt.27.2.06 Exhibits for the opposite party B1.Copy of the members application form submitted by complainant B2.Letter dt.10.12.05 sent to complainant B3.Lawyer notice issued by complainant B4.Reply notice sent to OP B5 & 6.Postal Receipt and AD Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2.Narayanan Karanavar Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.P.Kunhiraman /Forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
