ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The complaint filed by the complaint for getting an amount of Rs.20,301.52/- the cost of the replaced optical fibre cable , 5,000/- the cost of installation and transportation charge, Rs.7,100/- as the cost of splicing charges, compensation and cost The averments in the complaint can be summarized as follows: The complainant is the proprietor of Gee Bees Cable Net Work, Cherumood,m Kollam and he is a registered cable TV operator. On 25.3.2006 the complainant had purchase 2099 mts of optical fibre cable from the 1st opp.party through their 2nd opp.party at Kollam for Rs.20,301,52/-. The 2nd opp.party issued a bill dated 25.3.2006 of the 1st opp.party. The complainant had drawn the entire optical fibre cable in his network area. After drawing the said fable from the very beginning there was major complaints in the fibre cable. The said cable drawn in the network area of the complainant were broken at several place in different times. Due to this complaint, the complaint cannot relay the TV signal to his customers without interruption. The optical fibre cable is very low quality. It was broken 7 times and the complainant approached the 2nd opp.party for all the 7 time and he arranged the splicing unit and for one splicing the complainant paid at about Rs.1000/- to the 2nd opp.party The complainant approached the opp.parties in several times in person and through telephone and informed about all these complainants Finally on 22.3.2007 the complainant send a registered lawyers notice to the opp.parties and the opp.parties accepted the notice. But so far replacement of the damages cable or return of the price of the cable with installation and other damages and the opp.parties accepted the notice There was a deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. Opp.parties filed no version. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P6 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Points 1 and 2 Opp.parties though served with a notice and appeared before the Forum chose not to file their version disputing or denying the averments made in the complaint. !st opp.party did not turn up to adduce any evidence at all. 2nd opp.party filed affidavit and examined their witness as DW.1 . During cross examination the complainant deposed that he has not sought any relief from 2nd opp.party. We have carefully perused the complaint, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant. As no evidence is adduced from the side of the 1st opp.party, we are constrained to rely upon the evidence before us. From the Exhibits and affidavit and deposition of PW.1 shows that there is deficiency in service from the side of 1st opp.party. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get relief from the 1st opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed. The 1st opp.party is directed. To pay Rs.20,301.52[Rupees twenty thousand three hundred one and fifty two paise only] as cost of the replaced optical fibre cable, Rs.5,000/- as cost of installation and Transportation charge, Rs.7100/- as cost of splicing charges to the complainant. The 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony of the complainant. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 29th day of June, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Georgekutty K.M. List of documents for the complainant P1. – Bill dated 25.3.2006 P2. – Job work Estimate P3. – Bill dated 14.11.2007 P4. – Advocate Notice P5. – Postal receipt P6. – Acknowledgement card. List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. – Anil raj | 
