Date of Filing:24.12.2008

Date of Order: 19.03.2009

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20

Dated: 19th DAY OF MARCH 2009

PRESENT

Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President

Smt.C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member


COMPLAINT NO. 2787 OF 2008

Sri. S.K. Rajendra,
Advocate,
R/at: # 26/1-399, Near
Veerabhadreshwara Swamy Temple,
Hagadur, Immadihalli Post,
White Field,
BANGALORE-560 066. …. Complainant.

-V/s-

The Proprietor,
Sri Sha Cable Net Works,
No.16, Sri Sha Nilaya,
Near Veerabhadreshwara
Swamy Temple, Hagadur,
Immadihalli Post, Whitefield,
BANGALORE-560 066. …. Opposite Party.

ORDER

This complaint is filed claiming Rs.61,775/- from the opposite party. This amount includes the refund of installation charges of Rs.200/-, subscription charges from July-2007 to November-2008 at the rate of Rs.75/- per month in all Rs.1,275/-, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, installation charges of Rs.300/- paid to new cable operator and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant has also claimed Rs.150/- from the opposite party towards the subscription paid by him to other cable operator for the month of January-2009 and also claimed refund of such subscription till the date of disposal of the case so also interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount to be refunded. The case of the complainant is as under:-
The opposite party is running the business of cable network in the name and style of “Sri Sha Cable Net Works” and the complainant also subscribed for the cable network of the opposite party in July-2007, paid installation charges of Rs.200/- and has been paying subscription of Rs.75/- per month. Since the time the complainant became the consumer of the opposite party, the opposite party was not providing good service. There were lot of interruptions and in spite of several requests and calls the same was not rectified. The opposite party had promised to give 60 channels, but provided only 30 channels. Whenever enquired about it, the opposite party gave evasive reply. The opposite party also did not provide the terms and conditions of the cable network and the list of channels provided. They have also not issued the receipts in respect of payment of Rs.200/- made in July-2007 towards installation charges. The opposite party was also irregular in giving the bills and issuing the receipts in respect of the monthly subscription paid by the complainant. Though the opposite party was regular in collecting the subscription charges every month, it failed to attend to the discrepancies in spite of several requests and telephonic calls. There were lot of interruptions in the cable network everyday ever since July-2007. In the card issued to the complainant the telephone number of the opposite party is mentioned as 28455858, but in the receipts neither the telephone number nor the name of the person to be contacted in case of discrepancy is mentioned. He was unable to contact the opposite party over the telephone number mentioned in the card. When he informed about it, the opposite party gave another number 28450616, but the said number was not reflected in the card as well as in the receipts. On enquiry, in the telephone exchange he was informed that the telephone number 28455858 was disconnected on 06.12.2005 for non-payment of the bill amount and therefore the opposite party is using the current No.28450616. Thus the opposite party has not bothered to give correct telephone numbers to his customers either in the card or in the receipts. Dissatisfied with the services provided by the opposite party he sent legal notice dated: 25.11.2008 demanding the refund of the amount paid, but he did not receive any response from the opposite party, though the notice was serviced on 26.11.2008. Soon after receipt of the legal notice the opposite party disconnected the connection in his absence without any notice, information or intimation. On that day, Mumbai Terror had taken place and all the channels were relaying the same. On account of disconnection of the cable network he was unable to watch the same. Having collected the subscription fee for the month of November-2008 the opposite party was bound to give proper service and after he sent the legal notice dated: 25.11.2008, instead of complying with the demand or giving reply to the notice the opposite party immediately disconnected the cable connection on 26.11.2008. As a consequence he had to take the services of another cable network namely Sri Sat Vision, White Field, on 06.12.2008 by paying the installation charges of Rs.300/- and has been paying monthly subscription of Rs.150/- from January onwards. Since the same was due to deficiency of service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party, the opposite party is bound to pay those amounts. The acts of the opposite party as stated above amount to deficiency in service as well as Unfair Trade Practice and therefore he is entitled to claim the amount mentioned in the complaint.

2. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:-
The opposite party operates cable television network with permission of the concerned authority since 29.12.2003. The complainant approached the opposite party in July-2007 for availing the services and was paying monthly subscription of Rs.75/-. However it is denied that the complainant has paid Rs.200/- towards installation charges. The complainant was informed that they will provide only 30 channels and there was no assurance to provide 60 channels. The cable boy used to be sent regularly to enquire about the service provided and feed back was very good. The terms and conditions of the network services were clearly explained to the complainant orally and only after accepting the same the network service was provided. Since January-2008 they are providing 40 channels to the subscribers. Telephone No.28455858 had been mentioned in the payment receipts, but after the telephone number was changed as No.28450616 the same was informed to the clients by way of pamphlets and also when the cable boys went to collect subscription charges. The complainant had not issued any legal notice. The network service of the complainant was not disconnected. Since the complainant wanted more channels than what was provided they expressed inability to provide all the channels demanded for a monthly subscription of Rs.75/-. Thereupon the complainant expressed his desire of discontinuing the service and paid all the amounts due. There was no disruption of service on 26.11.2008 as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was always in the habit of threatening that he would file cases against them stating that, he is an Advocate by profession. The complainant expressed his desire to discontinue the services in November-2008 and they have no knowledge as to which cable new work the complainant has subscribed. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and as such, there is no legal liability to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. On these grounds the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In support of the respective contentions, both the parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. The complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the opposite party.

4. The points for consideration are:-
(1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

(2) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

5. Our findings on the above points are in the Negative for the following:-

REASONS

POINT Nos. 1 & 2:-
6. The fact that the complainant subscribed to the cable net work service of the opposite party in July-2007 and was paying monthly subscription of Rs.75/- is admitted. However the claim of the complainant that he had paid Rs.200/- for the installation charges is denied by the opposite party. No receipt is produced regarding payment of Rs.200/- towards installation charges. But it is common knowledge that the cable network service providers collect some amount towards installation charges while providing the service. The amount so collected is towards the cost of the material required for giving connection and towards labour charges. Without payment of installation charges the cable network service provider cannot be expected to spend himself for cost of the material and labour charges to provide connection. Therefore there appears to be some truth in the contention of the complainant that, he had paid Rs.200/- towards installation charges to the opposite party while taking the cable network connection. But the complainant is not entitled to claim refund of the said amount, because the amount so paid is appropriated towards the cost of the material and labour charges. When once the connection is given using the material required and employing labour such amount cannot be refunded. After availing the service of the opposite party in July-2007 for the first time the complainant gave legal notice to the opposite party on 25.11.2008 alleging interruption in the services and therefore called upon the opposite party to remove all the cable wires and to refund the amount paid towards monthly subscription as well as towards installation charges. In para-14 of the legal notice at Page-5 the demand made by the complainant is as under:-
“In light of the above discussed facts and circumstances I hereby call upon you to remove all unnecessary cable wires passing through my building, and also to refund the monthly subscription charges collected from me since July-2007 and the deposit of Rs.200/- which you have taken from me and also to give me compensation of Rs.20,000/- for causing me mental agony, unnecessary hardship, and harassment for being your customer within 15 days from the receipt of this legal notice.”

Therefore by the legal notice dated: 25.11.2008 the complainant called upon the opposite party to remove all the unnecessary cable wires passing through the building and to refund the monthly subscription collected from July-2007, the deposit of Rs.200/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-. If that is so, the complainant is not justified to find fault with the opposite party in disconnecting the network on 26.11.2008 soon after the receipt of the legal notice. The disconnection of the cable network was as per the demand made by the complainant in the legal notice and the opposite party acted as per the demand made by the complainant. As such, we are unable to agree that the act of the opposite party in disconnecting the network connection on 26.11.2008 amounts to either deficiency in service or Unfair Trade Practice. Therefore when the network connection was disconnected as per the demand made by the complainant, the complainant was unable to watch the programs including Mumbai Terror which according to the complainant took place on 26.11.2008. In the legal notice the complainant has also alleged that on 23.12.2008 the opposite party failed to provide the cable network and therefore he was unable to watch India-England 4th ODI Match in Bangalore. But this grievance that the network was not provided on 23.12.2008 is not reflected in the complaint. In other words the grievance with regard to non-providing network on 23.12.2008 is not raised in the complaint and in its place the grievance with disconnection on 26.11.2008 and thereby depriving the complainant of the program with regard to Mumbai Terror is made. The other allegations in the complaint with regard to disruption of the service are very vague. Those allegations of improper service are denied by the opposite party. Except the legal notice dated: 25.11.2008 no material is produced to show that between July-2007 and November-2008 any complaints were made to the opposite party regarding improper service. In the absence of such material on the basis of vague allegations made by the complainant we are unable to make-out that the service provided by the opposite party was deficient or improper. The fact that the complainant had subscribed with other network service provider is no ground to claim the amount paid by the complainant to other service provider from the opposite party. When the complainant demanded the opposite party to remove the cable wires and accordingly the opposite party disconnected the network, the complainant shifted to some other service provider, as such, he cannot seek to fix the liability on the opposite party to pay the amounts spent for availing the services of other network provider. Thus from the material on record we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore, we hold that, the complainant. is not entitled to the relief claimed for. In the result, we pass the following:-

ORDER

7. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.


8. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs immediately.

9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19th DAY OF MARCH 2009.

-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT