DISTRICT CONSUMER D REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 31st day of JANUARY 2019
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member Date of filing:29/01/2018
CC/12/2018
Nishad,
S/o.Kumaran,
Ambalaparambil House,
Peringode(P.O), Thozhukkad,
Palakkad – 679 535. - Complainant
(By Party in person only)
Vs
Unnikrishnan
Pallavi Cable Vision,
Peringode(P.O), Peringode,
Palakkad – 679 535.
(By Adv.T.V.Pradeesh)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case
On 15/09/2015 from Pallavi Cable Vision complainant purchased a new set top box for Rs.2,000/- and on 05/10/2015 the same was damaged; on informing this matter to the opposite party, on the same day opposite party came and took back the set top box and guarantee card on the promise that a new set top box will be given and temporarily an old set top box was kept in the complainant’s house. After about two weeks this set top box became faulty and on informing the opposite party, he again kept an old set top box without guarantee card in complainant’s house with a promise of free service. Later, on November 11 2015, when opposite party came for the bill opposite party did not hand over to the complainant a new set top box promised to be given earlier by the opposite party. According to the complainant, this act on the part of the opposite party amounted to service deficiency. On 17/01/2018 this set top box also became damaged and the complainant called the opposite party who came on 18/01/2018 to complainant’s house after complainant paid Rs.300/- to the opposite party who took back complainant’s set top box telling the complainant that only on paying service charge for the damaged set top box, the same would be repaired and given to the complainant. The argument of the complainant is that only for a new set top box he was willing to pay the service charge; according to the complainant for the in question set top box no guarantee card was given. On 12/07/2017 complainant took a new cable connection in his rented house and the opposite party placed in his house an old set top box without guarantee, promising to the complainant to bring a new set top box within a week, but complainant pleaded that so far new set top box was not brought, which act constituted deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Further, on complainant changing his residence to his own house, on 10/01/2017 complainant asked the opposite party to give him a new set top box with guarantee card, but the opposite party refused to give the same, demanding from the complainant Rs.600/- which also displays opposite party’s service deficiency. Complainant prays to this Hon’ble Forum to direct the opposite party to purchase for him a new set top box or to refund its price of Rs.4,300/-, to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and to order the opposite party for payment of Rs.500/- to the complainant by way of cost of this proceeding and give a warning to the opposite party not to commit any service deficiency in their services in future to the complainant.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party to enter his appearance and file his version.
In his version opposite party contends that this complaint does not stand legally and is filed stating false matters. According to the opposite party the complaint is filed against an establishment but the opposite party is shown in his personal capacity and therefore this establishment was not impleaded; also set top box was issued by Kerala Vision as is clear from the complaint. Since both parties are not impleaded, the complainant suffers from the legal barrier of “non joinder of necessary parties”. Opposite party contends that for this reason the complaint should be dismissed. Opposite party also contends that the aversions mentioned in the complaint are not correct and hence they are denied by this opposite party; after hearing about complainant’s financial problems, on 12/07/2017, the opposite party gave the complainant a free connection as an adjustment. According to this opposite party complainant’s statement that he asked for a new set top box is false and opposite party agreed to bring the same within a week. According to this opposite party, the subject connection was disconnected months ago and on account of rent of this connection there was two months arrears and the subject set top box was not returned and that amount was demanded was correct. According to this opposite party, the connection was taken along with set top box in 2015 and after three years on account of rental arrears there was verbal dual and hence this complaint was given showing false matters. This opposite party further contends that complainant has not cleared rent and as on 29/01/2018 complainant has rental arrears for four months and that complainant is not a consumer and in addition amount is due from him in taking connection second time. Also according to this opposite party complainant created artificial evidences whose authenticity is to be proved by the complainant. For a set top box service charge of Rs.225/- will be recovered from a customer by the complainant. For a prompt customer some adjustments are given but not in the case of this customer who is exploiting. Hence opposite party prays to this Forum to accept his contentions and dismiss the complaint.
Complainant filed chief and additional affidavits and the opposite party filed proof affidavit. Opposite party also filed IA/219/18 seeking permission to cross examine the complainant and as no objection to this was submitted by the complainant. This IA was allowed. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked from the side of the complainant except Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.A6 which were marked with objection. Ext.MO1 was also marked. Both parties were also heard.
The following issues come up for consideration in this case.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice
committed by the opposite party?
2. If so, the relief and cost entitled for the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2 in brief
Complainant has produced six documents Exts.A1 to A6 to prove his arguments. Exts.A1 to A3 and Ext.A6 were marked with objections. Exts.A4 and A5 were marked without objections. Ext.A4 is a small hand book issued by Pallavi Cable Vision, Peringode to the complainant with his connection No.65. This Exhibit shows entries on various dates in 2015 and 2016 and as on November 2016 balance due was shown as Rs.600/-. Ext.A5 is a small hand book issued by Pallavi Cable Vision, Peringode to the complainant on his connection No.181, issued on 12/07/2017 on which it is seen that complainant has paid Rs.200/- on 10/08/2017 for August, entry for this only present in this hand book. From the above 2 Exts. it is observed that the complainant is not regularly paying cable rent and installments. We also find that arrears are there by the complainant. All these are clear from complainant’s deposition before this forum as PW1 on 28/10/2018 as shown below.
”Ahkm\w F¶mWv cablesâ paisa AS¨Xv Ft¶mÀ½bnÃ. Cable cut Bb tijw AhÀ ]dªX\pkcn¨v Hcp 300/þ cq] AS¨p. 17.09.2017 Xo¿Xn¡mWv 300/þ cq] AS¨Xv F¶v ]dªm F\n¡dnbnÃ. AXn\ptijw Rm³ ss]k AS¡p¶Xv 18.01.2018 Xo¿Xn¡mWv. Ext.A4 {]Imcw balance kwJy 600/-þ cq] ASbv¡m\pÅXmbn ImWpw. cmaXv connection X¶t¸mÄ Rm³ 2,300/þ cq] sImSp¯p F¶p ImWn¡m³ tcJsbm¶pw X¶nÃ. 12/07/17\v card X¶Xn¸ns¶ 16/08/17\v Hcp 200/þ cq] AS¨Xmbn«v ]n¶oSv AXn bmsXmcp kwJybpw AS¨ncp¶nÃ. 10þ)0 amkw Rm³ ho«nte¡v amdn. AXn\p ap¼v Rm³ thsd payment H¶pw AS¨n«nÃ. Set off box \¶m¡m\pÅ service charge H¶pw Rm³ sImSp¯n«nÃ. ap³]v ho«nepÅ connection\v Rm³ subscription _m¡n 400/þ cq] sImSp¡m\pmbncp¶p. Rm³ hmSI¡v t]mhp¶ kab¯v 400/þ cq] IpSnÈnI Dmbncp¶p. hmSI ho«nse 1 amks¯ IpSnÈnI Dv F¶mWv HmÀ½. tcJ t\m¡nbn«v _m¡nbpÅ IpSnÈnIbpsS kwJy tImSXnbn sI«nshbv¡m³ Rm³ X¿mdmWv. ”
At the same time we also observe that the complainant has purchased a new set top box on 15/09/2015 for Rs.2,000/- from the opposite party which became faulty on 05/10/2015 which was informed to the opposite party and on the same day the new set top box and the guarantee card were taken by the opposite party from the complainant, but it is seen that the same was not yet returned to the complainant after repairing and making it in a good working condition till the date of filing this complaint which demonstrates a grave deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. We also find that whenever set top box became faulty, opposite party replaced the same by old set top boxes with no guarantee card. This also shows service deficiency and unfair trade practice having been committed by the opposite party. Thus we find that on the part of the both parties there are deficiencies and defaults. Hence the complaint is partly allowed.
We order the opposite party to repair thoroughly the set top box taken from the complainant which has been newly purchased on 15/09/2015 and return the same to the complainant after making it in a good working condition by recovering from the complainant a service charge of Rs.225/-(Rupees two hundred and twenty five only) as the guarantee period of the said set top box is seen expired; if not possible, we order the opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) being the cost of the said set top box to the complainant. We also order the opposite party to take back the set top box surrendered to this Forum by the complainant which is marked as Ext.MO1, once this order is executed.
This order shall be executed within 30 days of the receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2019.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Chip ID 1 No.00652709350 given by opposite party to the complainant.
(with objection)
Ext.A2 – Chip ID 2 No.00652709350 given by opposite party to the complainant.
(with objection)
Ext.A3 – Chip ID 3 No.00652709350 given by opposite party to the complainant.
(with objection)
Ext.A4 - A small hand book issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
(Con.No.65)
Ext.A5 - A small hand book issued by the opposite party to the complainant.
(Con.No.181)
Ext.A6 – Phone call to opposite party recorded by the complainant in CD
(with objection)
Ext.MO1 – Old Set top box given by opposite party surrendered by the
complainant to this Forum.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil.
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 - Nishad
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost
Rs.2,000/
