DOF.16.11.2006 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 5TH day of April 2010 CC.243/2006 P.V.Sadanandan, “Ushas” Pazhassi Amsom, Kayani Desom, P.O.Kayani, Thalassery Taluk Complainant (Rep. by Adv.M.Govindankutty) Vadavati Ranjesh, Porkanath House, Mangattidom Amsom, Vattipram P.O.Mangattidom, Thalassery Taluk Opposite party (Rep. by Adv.,Benny Varghese) O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protecti9n Act for an order directing the opposite party to give Rs.78000/- as compensation for 26 persons who availed cable TV connection and for further direction to give uninterrupted cable TV connection. The case of the complainant is that the complainant along with 25 persons availed cable TV connection from the opposite party and for giving cable connection, he had collected Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- from the complainant and another 25 persons as refundable deposit and the opposite party had supplied the cable TV connection from August 2002 and this 25 persons were signed in the complaint. At the time of availing connection the opposite party made believe the complainant that he will provide cable connection without any break and will also provide Dooradarsan news channel and other pay channel. Apart from the deposit, the complainant and others were paying Rs.100/- as monthly charges. But the subscribers were not receiving the news channels or other channels as per the promise of the opposite party from 2006 July onwards the cable connection was disconnected and the opposite party is not ready to reconnect the same even after repeated request. About 76 subscribers of cable TV were paying regularly for the cable connection monthly. Even though subscribers of the cable TV were paid regularly the monthly subscription, the opposite party is not ready to provide cable connection. So there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. So the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party he is not ready to comply the notice. Hence the complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, opposite party has appeared and filed their version. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had availed cable connection from the opposite party. But denied that the 25 persons who had signed in the complaint were availed cable connection. The complainant has not produced the power of attorney or any authorization in respect of the above stated 25 person. So the complainant has no locus standi to file or represent on behalf o other person. The opposite party further submits that the cable relay was enjoined by the persons in the locality till September 2006. But during 2006 September due to the theft of cable wire the relay was obstructed and it is not correct to say that the connection was disconnected in the Kayani area. The opposite party has not received any amount as security and is used to issue bills for the monthly subscription. The connection was restored in the area where the relay was obstructed due to the theft of cables. Some delay was caused due to the theft and there is no willful default on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The other persons who were signed in the complaint were filed a petition to Implead them as supplemental complainants and for consequential amendments. But the petitions were dismissed since the complaint was filed in the year 2006 and that the pleadings of the complainant does not reflect the interest of more other than the complainant and the persons whose names are sought to be imp leaded has no relation with the present complainant. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the PWs1 to PW3 and DW1 and Exts.A1 and A2. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that he along with other 25 persons was availed cable TV connection by giving Rs.1000/-to Rs.2000/- as advance from August 2002 with a promise that the opposite party will provide cable connection with Dooradarshan pay channel and other pay channels without interruption. But the relay was interrupted and later on during July 2006 the opposite party disconnected the connection. But the complainant hasn’t produced any document in order to prove the contention of the complainant that he had availed cable connection by depositing Rs.1000/-to the opposite party. So this allegation can be discarded as such. More over the complainant contended that the opposite party failed to give connection properly even though the complainant has paid monthly subscription regularly. But the complainant has not produced receipts for the subscription. According to opposite party relay was obstructed due to theft of cable and was restored within one month. But he has not produced any documents to that effect. But the complainant has not produced any receipts to show that the opposite party failed to give service even though had paid regularly without any fault. So the complainant failed to prove his case beyond doubt. So we re not in a position to attribute negligence upon the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has not produced any power of attorney or authorization in respect of other 25 persons who were signed in the complaint. So the complainant has no locust standi to represent the other complainants. So the above complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Recipt dt.25.1.06 issued by Kiran cable TV net work A2.Receipt dt.11.6.06 issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Sadanandan PW2.P.Surendran PW3.M.Ravindran Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Rajesh /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Kannur
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
