DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2022
Filed on: 25/07/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. NO. 307/2018
COMPLAINANT
Sunil Chammany, S/o. C.X. Thomas, Chammany House, Near Pancharatna Apartments, Ponoth Road, Eranakulam, Kochi – 17
(T.J.Lakhmanan, Central Law Firm, Mega Arcade, Power House Road,
Cochin-18)
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY:
Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd., Ernakulam North (GA06), Door No. 48/348, Atagore Lane, Backside of Federal B, Ernakulam, Kochi – 18. Rep. by its Area Manager.
(Rep. by Adv. Rajagopal, 2nd Floor, P.C. Chambers, Ashir Bhavan Lane, Near Kacheripady Junction, Banerji Road, Ernakulam 682018)
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant availed cable connection from the opposite party and is making yearly payments for the period from July, 2016 to August 2017 and September, 2017 to October, 2018. The complainant paid the yearly payment of Rs.3,540/- for the period from July, 2016 and paid the payment of Rs.3,840/- for the period from September, 2017 to October, 2018. From 16/06/2018 onwards the complainant was not getting the cable connection and on 16/06/2018 itself the complainant had contacted the opposite party nearly 14 times. The only response received from the opposite party is that ‘you are on queue’. The complainant had contacted the opposite party since he was not able to see the programmes especially the FIFA World cup. Meanwhile on 21/06/2018, the complainant had received a message from the opposite party that complaint No. GA06181779 is allotted but there was no other response from the opposite party to cure the defects. On 30/06/2018, the complainant received another message from the opposite party that the complainant has been registered. Even though the complainant received message that his complaint has been registered after 10 days from the date of its first call regarding the defects in the cable connection.
The complainant and his kids are eagerly waiting to watching the FIFA World Cup and the complainant was forced to avail City Cable Connection through their franchisee Four Star Vision, Kaloor by remitting an amount of Rs.4,000/- on 29/06/2018. The complainant states that the action of the opposite party not considering the grievance of the complainant even after 10 days from the date of complaint amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The complainant had to suffer mental agony, pain and other hardships due to the action of the opposite party and he is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party. The complainant had paid Rs.3,840/- as cable connection charges for one year. The opposite party is not in a position to provide proper cable programme facility to the complainant. Due to this deficient act of the opposite party the complainant was forced to avail cable connection from another franchisee by remitting Rs.4,000/-. Hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking orders directing the opposite party to refund Rs.7,840/-, to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as cost of proceedings.
2. Notice
Notice was issued to opposite party from this Commission on 15/09/2018 and opposite party appeared and filed their version.
3. Version
The complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. The cable connection was given to the complainant after the complainant had agreed to comply with the terms and conditions in the installation report. The allegation that on 16/06/2018, the complainant was getting cable facility, that on the said day complainant called the opposite party nearly 14 times, that the response from the opposite party was that ‘you are on queue’ and the complainant had frequently contacted the opposite party upto 26/06/2018 are false and hence denied. On 21/06/2018, when the opposite party had received a complaint from the complainant, the same was registered, allotting the complainant a specific number. It is also false to allege that there was no response from the opposite party. The complaint which occurred in the locality due to unauthorized cut and several places in the locality, despite earnest efforts, the same could be completely resolved only on 26/06/2018. If at all there was any complaint as alleged in para 4 of the complaint, the complainant ought to have intimated the same to the opposite party instead of taking a new connection. It is false to allege that the opposite party did not take any action even after 10 days of registration of the complaint. No mental agony or hardships was caused to the complainant as alleged and hence there is no reason for compensating the complainant.
It is not true to allege that the opposite party was not in a position to provide proper cable programme facility to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled to get a sum of Rs.7,840/- as alleged in the complaint. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged. The copies of documents produced along with the complaint were not furnished to the opposite party. The opposite party seeks leave to file additional version on receipt of the copies of documents produced by the complainant.
4. Evidence
Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant. Complainant has filed 3 documents which was marked as Exbt. A1 to A3. Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.
5. The issued came up for consideration in this case are:
1. Whether any deficiency in service is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
The specific case of the complainant is that even though he had availed cable connection from the opposite party and is making yearly payments, the opposite party has not provided proper cable programme facility to the complainant. Even after repeated requests, the opposite party has not provided the cable connection during the time of FIFA world cup. The complainant was not able to see the programme of FIFA World cup and hence he was forced to avail cable connection from another franchisee by remitting Rs.4,000/-.
Exbt. A1 produced by the complainant is a bill cum receipt issued in the name of the complainant by Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. for Rs.3,540/- in which the period of subscription was shown as July, 2016 to August, 2017 (14 months). Exbt. A2 is also a receipt in which the annual subscription is for a period from September, 2017 to October, 2018 (14 months) for Rs.3,840/-. Exbt. A3 is also a receipt for R.4,000/- issued by Four Star Vision in the name of Sunil Thomas. The complainant submits that it is the receipt for the new cable connection availed by the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party.
As per Exbt. A2, the period of subscription taken by the complainant ends in October, 2018. The case of the complainant is that on 16/06/2018 the complainant was not getting cable facility and on 16/06/2018 itself nearly 14 times had contacted the opposite party and the problem was not solved. The opposite party submitted that they have not produced the call list to prove this. Even though the complainant has not produced the call list to show that the complainant had called the opposite party several times, the opposite party in their version (paragraph 3) admits that ‘the complaint which occurred on 21/06/2018 with respect to the cable connection to the residence of the complainant was a complaint which occurred in the said locality due to unauthorized cutting of cable at several places. Since the cables were unauthorizedly cut at several places in the locality, despite earnest efforts, the same could be completely resolved only on 26/06/2018. Hence it is true that deficiency of service occurred from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant in providing proper cable connection for the period of 5 days. In this case opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that the allegations raised by the complainant are not true. From the available documents and evidence it can be seen that the opposite party has not taken any steps to resolve the issues in the cable connection. Hence we have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. In the interest of justice it is also noted that the subscription taken by the complainant from the opposite party ends in October, 2018. The complainant has taken the new cable connection just four months before the end of the annual subscription period, which ends in October, 2018. Hence except for these four months complainant has utilized the cable connection taken from the opposite party.
Based on the above discussions, Point No (1) and (2) is decided accordingly and is found in favour of the complainant.
1. We direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) to the complainant for the deficiency of service proved towards the complainant.
2. We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred only) as cost of proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 24th day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exbt. A1: Copy of Bill-cum-Receipt dated 26/06/2016
Exbt. A2: Copy of Bill-cum-Receipt dated 01/09/2017
Exbt. A3: Copy of Receipt dated 29/06/2018
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 307/2018
Order Date: 24/01/2023
