SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting direction to opp.parties to reconnect cable connection and to pay damages Rs.10,000/- and cost. The complaint is filed alleging that the opp.party had disconnected the cable connection without the knowledge of the complainant and has been done with out any basic reason. In the month of May, 2006 the complainant had taken cable connection from the opp.party depositing Rs.2,000/- as security. The complainant had remitted the monthly rent upto the month of August, 2006. On enquiry the opp.party said that he has the authority to disconnect the connection at any time. He was not ready to accommodate the complainant. The complainant sent an Advocate notice to the opp.party on 30.8.2006 and it was replied by the opp.party. The complainant and his family were unable to enjoy Onam programs because 7 days before Onam the disconnection was effected. Opp.party had committed deficiency in service. Complainant and his family suffered mental agony and it is to be compensated with Rs.10,000/- The opp.party filed version stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Opp.party rendered cable connection to the complainant on May 2006 on receipt of only Rs.500/- and that amount was utilized for cable and other materials and for labour charges. Usually Rs.1000/- is an accepted amount for connection. The complainant availed connection during summer vacation and as per the special offer. Monthly rent of connection is Rs.130/- The complainant had paid rent for the month of May belatedly on 30.7.06 and after that no single paise is paid till the complaint. The opp.party was constrained to disconnect the connection on the basis of notice dated 25.8.2006 sent by Mr.T. Hilarios, Pezhuvila Thodiyil, Mylakkadu in which it is stated that connection was rendered through the property without his willingness and permission. He demanded to cut and remove the cable. Opp.party conveyed the matter to the complainant and removed the cable line only for reinstating cable connection through a safer way. But the complainant insisted opp.party to reconnect through the same way. During the Onam period, the complainant and his family had gone for a devotional trip to Velaankanni Shrine at Tamilnadu. The complaint is experimental suppressing material facts. No deficiency of service from the part of opp.party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit, PW.1 examined. Ext. P1 marked. From the side opp.party DW.1 and 2 were examined. Ext. D1 and D2 marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. 2. Compensation and costs. Points I It is an admitted fact that the complainant availed cable connection from the opp.party in the month of May 2006. The complainant has stated in the complaint that he had paid Rs.2000/- as security deposit and remitted all monthly rent upto August. The opp.party contended that the complainant had paid only Rs.500/- as connection fee and it is not refundable because it was used for the materials and labour charges. The complainant had remitted only the 1st instalment, the rent for the month of May belatedly on 30.7.2006 and no other amount was paid as monthly rent. No evidence was produced by the complainant to prove that he had remitted Rs.2000/- as security deposit and had remitted rent upto the month of August 2006. The argument of complainant about the remittance of security deposit and monthly rent cannot be accepted.. The main contention of complainant is that the cable connection was disconnected without any knowledge of the complainant. The opp.party is duty bound to intimate the matter to the complainant. No enquiry was conducted by the opp.party. The disconnection was effected with out any basic reasons. It was purposefully done by the opp.party upon the instigation and influence of the said Hilarios. The property is not owned by Hilarios. It is a fact that the cable was disconnected because of the default of complainant in the payment of monthly rent. The opp.parties did not produce any document to show that he had given proper intimation to the complainant . While cross examination of opp.party as DW.1 he has stated that <lhlgjSulujH rjr\rk df\fkdj}j Qgk alcA dqjB\Blnk Sd>;jX alMjsdlmk]lR svr\rf\ Ext. D1 25.8.06 sh Lln\ complainant sRy i]JH Srl}Jc\ 30%8%2006 sh date Llnk\ . “The counsel for complainant put the question that Ll Srl}Jc\ YedlgA 26%1%2006 hlnk\ disconnection tr\rk dlnkr\rk? Answer Cgjulnk\. The counsel put further question ‘Hilarios sRy df\fk dj}j QgkalcA dqjBlBln\ disconnection tr\rkeyB\Bfk Cgjuh\hh\Shl?” His answer was ‘Cgjulnk\ rjuaYedlgA Srl}Jc\ Qr\rkA rHdjujgkr\rjh\h From this deposition itself it is clear that no proper intimation was given to the complainant and the statement of opp.party is not bonafide. If the disconnection was done after a period of one month as he has stated ,he had got sufficient time to give proper intimation to the complainant. The opp.party has further stated that “cable disconnect svu\unsar\r\ dlnjv\vk Sdlmfj Kf\fgi\ dj}juj}kn\mk\ “The counsel for complainant put the question that StfkSdlmfjujHrjr\rlnk\ ‘? He has answered that Stfk SdlmfjujH rjr\rlsnr\rk\ Lyjujh\h; Ll Kf\fgi\ <lwgl]lA He had further stated that “ BlR dd\,juh\h”; Even though the opp.party stated that there was a Court. Order and he is ready to produce before the Forum he has not produced any such order. From the irresponsible statement itself it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. Point II The complainant has stated in the complaint that he and his family could not enjoy the Onam Programmes due to the disconnection of Cable. The opp.party has contended that they had gone for a devotional trip the Venankanni. In the cross examination complainant admitted that at the time of disconnection they were at Velankanni. The complainant had made the statement in the cross examination that he had availed the service of another cable net work and it was less expensive. The quantum of compensation can be decided only after considering these facts. We have perused all the documents carefully and find that the non-intimation prior to the disconnection of Cable service is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to pay Rs.1500/- to the complainant as compensation and cost The opp.party can take legal steps for realization of rent arrears if any from the complainant. Dated this the 27th day of June, 2009. I n d e x List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – M.A. William List of documents for the complainant P1. – Advocate notice List of witnesses for the opp.party. DW.1. – Hilarios DW.2. – Vinod List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Postal receipt D2. - Notice | 
