M. Jayarajan, Revathy, Vattaplamood, Sreenivasapuram P.O, Varkala-695 145.
(By adv. Jamuna Kumari Thankachy)


Opposite parties:

1. 1. 1. The Managing Director, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., Registered and Corporate Office, 3rd Floor, Karimpanal Arcade, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.
         
      2. The Area Manager, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., Area Office, Pangode, Thirumala P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
         
      3. The Manager, Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., Varkala Branch office, Varkala.

(By adv. Cherunniyoor P. Sasidharan Nair)


This O.P having been heard on 16.03.2009, the Forum on 15.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant's T.V set was damaged during the work done by the Asianet crew members while changing over cable connection from M/s Skyline Cable Network direct to Asianet Cable Network on 30th August 2002 due to feeding of excessively boosted input signal to the T.V set, that the crew members were also working on “trial and error method” without having proper test instruments, proper tools etc., and that they left the site abruptly in a panic state without completing the work. Hence this complaint to get repair charges of complainant's T.V and compensation from the opposite parties.
Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable, and that the television set was damaged during the work done by the Asianet crew members while changing over cable connection etc. are totally false and mischievous. Opposite parties have certain technical parameters which they maintain strictly in all their installations. All levels are set as per international standard throughout the net work. No tuner will go faulty within an hour, the tuner will take a minimum of two to three weeks to go faulty. Opposite parties or their technicians have not done anything to damage complainant's T.V set as alleged in the complaint. The complaint is misconceived. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. 1. 1. Whether the T.V set was damaged at the hands of opposite party?
      2. Whether there has been negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
      3. Reliefs and costs.

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked. Commission report was marked as Ext. C1. In rebuttal, opposite parties filed counter affidavit. Opposite parties did not file any documents.
Points (i) to (iii):- Admittedly, as requested by the complainant the cable T.V connection of the complainant maintained by M/s Skyline Cable Network was converted to Asianet network on 30th August 2002. It has been the case of the complainant that his T.V was damaged during the work done by Asianet (ACV) crew members while changing over cable connection from M/s Skyline Cable Network direct to Asianet cable network on 30th August 2002 due to feeding of excessively boosted (High Voltage) input signal to the T.V set. It is submitted further that opposite parties' crew workers were working on 'trial and error' method without having proper test equipments or tools or even a spare monitor, subjecting his set to great stress and strain. It has been rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that opposite parties have certain technical parameters which they maintain strictly in all their connections, that all levels are set as per international standards throughout their network, that they maintain proper signal levels in their network and the allegations of excessive boosting does not occur in this case, and that opposite parties' technicians have not done anything to damage the complainant's T.V set. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter dated 30.09.2002 addressed to opposite parties by the complainant regarding the aforesaid incident. Ext. P2 is the copy of reply sent by the opposite parties to Ext. P1 letter. In Ext. P2 reply it is seen stated that complainant had already registered the complaint with opposite party on 15th August 2002,(complaint No. A 8/61) regarding grain of pictures, that opposite parties' complaint team had visited the complainant's house and informed him to contact their cable operator, as it was not their connection at that time. Submission by the opposite parties is that the tuner was faulty at that time itself and that opposite parties converted their connection to their net work only on 30th August 2002. It is further stated in Ext. P2 that the signal level in the earlier network maintained by the local operator must have been high, which the opposite party is not aware of. Ext. P3 is the copy of another letter dated 11.11.2002 with regard to the same incident issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of the reply to Ext. P3 issued by the opposite party. In Ext. P4 it is seen replied by the opposite parties that even if opposite parties gave boosted signals as complainant mentioned the tuner will take a minimum of 2 to 3 weeks to go faulty and that no tuner will go faulty within an hour. Ext. P5 is copy of the estimation given by Namji Services. Ext. P6 is the copy of the connection installation receipt dated 31.07.2001 issued by Asianet Satellite communications Pvt. Ltd. Ext. C1 is the expert commission report. In Ext. C1 expert's assessment is given as follows:

1. The T.V was found not functional for testing due to LOT arcing. So it is presumed that the tuner unit is damaged.
2. The tuner unit can be damaged for any of the two reasons below:

(a) Normal breakdown-due to ageing/workmanship/unreliable components used in the unit
(b) High Voltage input-there is no specific protection against external high voltage input to the tuner in an isolated power supply based design (as in the case of this T.V). The tuner can thus be damaged due to a high voltage/spike input.

1. In a typical cable installation, a voltage input can go through the cable to the tuner accidentally if the main cable line which carries upto 75V is connected to the TV tuner. To avoid this RF couplers are used. However if the legs of the coupler gets interchanged by slip, this voltage input to the tuner can still happen.
2. To check this possibility a coupler unit used by M/s Asianet was tested. It was found that this possibility is extremely rare because the coupler design used by M/s Asianet incorporates an isolation transformer in addition to the voltage blocking capacitors. Only a failure of all the capacitors and the isolation transformer can result in the voltage being fed to the tuner.
3. It is not known if M/s Asianet had used the same kind of coupler during the day of the said incident, nor is there a way to ascertain if the coupler used then had failed to prevent voltage feeding to the TV unit.

In Ext. C1 report, it is summarised by the commissioner that damage to LOT is a normal failure has no relation with this complaint and further, that either poor workmanship of the coupler and cable installation or normal failure can result in damage of the T.V tuner. It is to be noted that the expert had checked the possibility of excess voltage passing through the coupler unit used by the opposite parties and it was found that this possibility is extremely rare because the coupler design used by opposite parties incorporates an isolation transformer in addition to the voltage blocking capacitors. Though complainant has filed objection to commission report, the commissioner has not been examined by the complainant. Ext. C1 report remains unchallenged. There is no material on record to show that the said T.V set was damaged due to the action of the opposite parties. Complainant has not succeeded in establishing the complaint against opposite parties. In view of the above, we find T.V set was damaged not at the hands of opposite parties and there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complaint has no merit at all, which deserves to be dismissed.