DOF.05.05.10
DOO.03.08.11
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President
Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member
Dated this, the 3rd day of August 2011
C.C.No.121 /2010
Sugathan Mattathil,
Mattathil House,
Kelakam Amsom Desom,
P.O.Kelakam 670 674. Complainant
Proprietor,
National Cables,
Cable Net works,
P.O.Kelakam. 670 674. Opposite parties
O R D E R
Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member
This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite party to pay `5000 as compensation and cost together with deposit `1500.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: The complainant availed cable TV connection from the opposite party by paying a deposit of `1500.The complainant has to pay monthly rent of `150.But the service rendered by the opposite party was not proper. At the time of availing connection the opposite party offered the clear transmission of 150 channels of programme. But the complainant could not get clear picture through the cable service rendered by the opposite party. The complainant alleges that he could not even get the clear picture of Asia net, Kairali, Surya, Amrita or DD Malayalam through the cable connection . Complainant informed about the short coming of cable connection to the opposite party directly and to their representatives. But no steps were taken by the opposite party to rectify the defect. On 19.2.2010 also the complainant made complaints to the representative of the opposite party who came for collecting the monthly rent about the deformity of picture clarity and the complainant paid the monthly rent of January but after receipt of the same the employee of the opposite party with out giving any prior intimation disconnected the cable to the house of the complainant. On enquiry he learned that the opposite party disconnected the cable due to the arrears of monthly rent. But there was no dues of monthly rent. It was due to the bad service of opposite party he could not get the transmission of clear picture. The opposite party has not made any effort to provide effective and satisfactory service to their customers. Hence the complainant was compelled to take a dish connection provided by Sun direct spending `1650. The opposite party has not given any prior intimation about the disconnection of cable service to the complainant and the deposit amount of `1500 is also not refunded to the complainant. Hence the complainant had suffered mental agony for which he is assessing compensation to the tune of `5000. Hence the above complaint filed by the complainant for an order directing the opposite party to pay the above compensation amount and to refund `1500, the security deposit together with cost of the proceedings.
On getting the complaint notice was sent to the opposite party. The opposite party appeared and filed their version denying the allegation of the complainant. Opposite party contended that complainant was a chronic defaulter in paying the monthly rent. On 19.2.2010 complainant paid only 150 and at that time there was a balance of 100. Even though the complainant continued to enjoy the cable service through out the months of February, March and April. No payment was made by him. When the employees of the opposite party approached complainant for collecting rent, he abused them. On getting notice from the Forum, it was come to the notice of the opposite party that the complainant after dismantling the cable to his house installed sun direct net work. From escaping the liability of paying the defaulted monthly rent the complainant without informing the opposite party disconnected the cable and availed another net work connection. It is incorrect to say that opposite party received `1500 as security deposit from the complainant and the opposite party disconnected the cable to the house of the complainant. The complainant never made any complaints to opposite party regarding the quality of picture reception. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant without even paying the defaulted monthly rent trying to gain after dismantling the cable connection. No attempt was made by the complainant to prove his case before availing another connection. Hence opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite party in providing net work service to the complainant?
2. If so what is the quantum of damage entitled by the
complainant?
3. Relief and cost.
The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2, Ext.A1 and A2 series.
Issue Nos. 1
To prove the case of complainant, complainant himself examined as PW1 and also examined another witness as PW2. Ext.A1 series are the monthly rent card issued by the opposite party to the complainant.Ext.A2 series are the receipts showing payment of cable rent for the months November 2009 December 2009, January 2010. It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed cable net work service provided by the opposite party. The grievances of the complainant are that on September 2009 onwards he is not getting clear picture through the cable service rendered by the opposite party event though he made complaints to the employees of the opposite party who come for collecting monthly rent regarding the poor picture quality. Complainant further alleges that even though he paid the rent for the month of January 2010 vide Ext.A2(a) on 19.2.2010, the cable to the house of the complainant was disconnected by the opposite party on the same day without giving any prior intimation. Complainant alleges that he had been paying monthly rent to the opposite party regularly and also paid `1500 as deposit. Due to the lack of proper maintenance the complainant could not get proper reception of channel and due to the disconnection of cable the complainant forced to purchase another network connection by paying `1650. The opposite party disputed the above version of the complainant and contended that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly rent to the opposite party and without paying the arrears the complainant himself disconnected the cable and installed Sun Net work Connection. The point which arises for consideration is whether there is any substance in the complainant’s allegation. Even though the complainant pleaded that he was regularly paying cable rent to the opposite party, it is clear from Ext.A1 series that he made default in paying the rent for a continuous period of 3 months. Even after that the opposite party had not disconnected the cable service to the complainant. In these circumstances the contention of the complainant that the opposite party disconnected the cable to his house on 19.2.2010 the day on which he paid the monthly rent of January 2010 is not sustainable. There is no veracity in the evidence of PW2 with regard to the disconnection of cable service by the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant admits during cross examination that he is liable to pay `400 towards rent arrears to opposite party. From Ext.A1 series it can be seen that as on 19.2.2010 the balance arrears is below `100 only. This admission probabilise the case of the opposite party that complainant availed cable service during the months of February and March 2010 also. Hence the contention raised by the complainant regarding disconnection of cable service to the house of the complainant by the opposite party on 19.2.2010 is incorrect and misleading.
Then the other point arise for consideration is whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in providing clear picture to the complainant. In this point it is pertinent to note that the complainant has not produced any positive evidence to prove his case. Complainant alleges that from September 2009 onwards he could not see the television channels with clear picture due to the lack of proper maintenance of cable by the opposite party. But even after that he continued to enjoy the programme without any protest. He also paid rent during that period also. No written notice was issued to the opposite party requesting them to correct the defects. Any how complainant purchased new Sun Direct connection on 5.4.2010 as admitted by him during cross examination. Hence it is not possible to analise the picture quality of cable service. Oral evidence adduced by the complainant on this aspect is not at all reliable and trustworthy. Complainant alleges that he had paid `1500 to the opposite party as deposit at the time of availing connection. But no receipt is available to prove the same. The acceptance of deposit amount is denied by the opposite party. Hence it is the duty of the complainant to prove that he has made a refundable deposit of 1500 with opposite party. The evidence on this aspect is also quite lacking. Hence an overall consideration of the complainant’s case it can only be concluded that there is no bonafide in the complainant’s allegation and the complaint is only liable to be dismissed.
Issue Nos. 2 and 3
Since the issue No.1 is found against the complainant he is not entitled to get any relief prayed with the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Thus the issues are answered accordingly.
In the result, complaint is dismissed.
Sd- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1& A2.Receipt (for Payment of cash) issued by OP
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant.
PW2.Ajith
Witness examined for opposite party: Nil
/forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
