ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. The first complainant had a subscribed TV cable connection from the first opp.party paying the prescribed fees on 2.3.2005. The 2nd complainant is the mother of the first complainant. The 2nd opp.party is the distributor of TV signal to the first opp.party. The 1st and 2nd opp.parties are jointly operating TV Cable signal in Madanthacode area. The complainant’s were regularly paying the monthly subscription to the first opp.party for receiving TV cable signal. The opp.parties have instructed the complainants to disconnect the Cable when there is lightening. On 5.6.2007 there was lightening in Madanthacode area the 2nd complainant tried to disconnect the Cable From TV Set at about 9 pm on 5.6.07. Then the 2nd complainant was electrocuted, immediately the 2nd complainant was taken to Vijaya Hospital, Kottarakkara and admitted and treated ther as an inpatient upto 19.6.07. The 2nd complainant has sustained full thickness burns in her right hand thumb, right middle finger and total gangrene of right ring finger. The 2nd complainant had again admitted in the Vijaya Hospital on 3.7.2007 and discharged on 6.7.07. He was admitted on 28.2.2008 in SSM Hospital Kollam in connection with plastic surgery. The complainants have already spend more than Rs.50,000/- in connection with the treatment. On 3.12.07 the complainant issued a lawyer notice to the opp.parties . The first opp.party issued a reply stating that the cable installed in the complainants T.V. is of optical fibre Cables and the same is not conductor of electricity The 2nd opp.party is the main distributor of TV signals and the first opp.party is the local distributor in Madanathacode. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The 1st opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The 2nd complainant is not a consumer of this opp.party and hence she is not entitled to approach this Forum of any reliefs against the first opp.party. The first opp.party is not a consumer as he is not remitting the monthly subscription to the first opp.party with effect from May 2007 and from that day onwards he is not availing any service from the opp.party. There is no dealing between the first opp.party and the second complainant in this complaint and she is not a consumer of the first opp.party and hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The first complainant is the person who availed the connection from the first opp.party but from May 2007 onwards he is not paying the monthly subscription and now he is not a consumer as the necessary fee is not remitting by the first complainant The allegation that the complainants are the consumers of the opp.parties are also denied by the first opp.party as the first complainant who availed the connection is not paying the fixed monthly fixed charge to the first opp.party and hence he is not a consumer of the first opp.party. The first opp.party had any dealings with the second complainant and she is not availed any service from him. The allegation that on 5.6.07 there was lightning in the Madanthacode area is against facts and denied by this opp.party. The 2nd complainant was electrocuted while she trying to disconnect the cable from the TV set is also against facts and hence denied by the first opp.party The complainants not mentioned the set used by them at the alleged time of occurrence and that their television was free from any defect and after the incident also it is properly working. The second complainant had sustained full thickness burns in her right hand thumb etc. are also against facts and if the same was happened it was not due to the fault of this opp.party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. P1 to P8 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.parties POINTS: Opp.party 2 though served with notice did not appear before this forum not filed their version. Here there is no dispute that the injury happened to the 2nd complainant due to electric shock from the cable connection because the opp.party has not denied that averment of the complaint. The question to be decided is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. According to the complainants the complainant was electrocuted due to the negligence and deficiency of opp.parties in installing and the operation of the cable connection is improper and wrong manner and against the rules and regulations. More over the complainant’s case is that the optical “Fibre cables are installed only upto the 1st opp.party’s control room and the individual distribution to the consumers are through copper cables. For discrediting those contentions of the complainant, the opp.parties neither produced no oral or documentary evidence. 1st opp.parties main contention is that the 2nd complainant is not a consumer of them. But from the evidence it is revealed that she is a beneficiary of the cable connection. Hence she is also a consumer of opp.parties. The 1st opp.party has only cross-examined the complainant. 1st opp.party did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to prove their version.Through cross examination they could not discredit the evidence of the complainant. Through Ext.P5 and P6 the complainant proved that the 2nd complainant sustained injury due to electrical burns from the cable TV wire. Through the evidence of PW.1 and 2 and though the documents Ext.P1 to P8 the complainant proved their case. From the evidence and documents we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result complaint is allowed. Opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the 2nd complainant as treatment expense due to the negligence in service of the opp.parties. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 25th day of June, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. T. Sujatha PW.2. – List of documents for the complainant P1. – Consumer card P2. Advocate notice P3. – Reply notice P4. – Ration card P5. – Medical certificate P6. – Treatment certificate P7 – Treatment bills P8. - True copy of School certificate. List of witnesses and documents for the opp.parties :NIL | 
