DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 18th day of April 2024.
Filed on: 25/01/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 50/ 2021
COMPLAINANT
Sreekanth, S/o.PRN Nair, Surabhi, Villa No.6, Samrudhi Residence Association, Vrindavan Stop, North Paravoor-683 513
Vs
Opposite Parties
M/s Bhoomika Digital Cable Services Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Managing Director, Mr. Ralph Liliyan, S/o N.R. Robert, Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi -17.
(O.p rep. by Adv.Paul Dalin, D.D Tex World, Market Road, Near Convent Junction, Kochi-11)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint in question revolves around issues faced by the complainant related to internet services. The complainant seems to have experienced problems with their internet connection, which negatively impacted their employment, as well as the online education of their family. The complainant approached the opposite party, a Multi System Operator (MSO) that provides cable TV signals but not internet services, seeking resolution for their internet connectivity issues. The complainant sought a refund and compensation from the opposite party.
2) Notice
The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, who subsequently appeared and submitted their version.
3) THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The opposite party emphasised their non-involvement in providing internet services to the complainant. They stated that the complaint lacks legal or factual basis, highlighting that no services were availed from them by the complainant for obtaining an internet connection. They stress the absence of any contractual relationship or involvement in Internet services, describing their business as a Multi System Operator (MSO) distributing digital cable TV signals across Kerala, not an Internet Service Provider (ISP).
The opposite party points out the omission of the actual Internet Service Provider (ISP) and the Local Cable Operator (LCO) from whom the complainant obtained their Internet connection, suggesting that this undermines the complaint. The document explains that LCOs have separate contracts with ISPs for providing internet services, further distancing the opposite party from the provision of internet services. Despite allegations to the contrary, the opposite party denies having promised to provide internet services along with cable TV and clarifies their lack of involvement in the internet service issues raised by the complainant.
However, out of goodwill, the opposite party intervened in the complainant's service issues since the complainant was a cable TV customer through one of their LCOs. The opposite party has also offered to refund Rs. 5,000 for equipment costs if it is returned, which is highlighted as an act of goodwill rather than an admission of wrongdoing.
In conclusion, the opposite party contends that the complaint lacks a basis and seeks its dismissal with compensatory costs for the inconvenience caused. The opposite party stated that the complainant's actions were an attempt to tarnish their reputation and urged the commission to dismiss the complaint.
4) . Evidence
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but submitted two documents with the complaint to the commission:
- A copy of the WhatsApp communications.
- A copy of the complaint filed by the complainant to the Consumer Helpline.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
Sri. Paul Dalin, the learned counsel representing the opposite party, argued that the core defence against the complaint is grounded in their non-provision of internet services. The argument emphasizes that the complaint lacks a legal or factual basis, highlighting several key points:
- Nature of the Opposite Party's Business: The opposite party is identified as a Multi System Operator (MSO) that specializes in distributing digital cable TV signals across Kerala to Local Cable Operators (LCOs). This classification establishes the opposite party's role exclusively within the realm of cable TV distribution, explicitly stating that they do not operate as an Internet Service Provider (ISP) nor hold a license for providing internet connections.
- Absence of Contractual Relationship: It's argued that there is no contractual arrangement or obligation for the opposite party to provide internet connection services to the complainant. Further, the complainant has reportedly failed to produce any documentation proving that the opposite party had promised or provided internet services.
- Clarification of Roles: The defense clarifies that the opposite party's business operations do not encompass the roles of producer, seller, manufacturer, retailer, or service provider in the context of internet services. This distinction is used to argue that there is no existing dispute requiring resolution between the complainant and the opposite party.
- Non-Inclusion of Relevant Parties: The argument notes that the actual Internet Service Provider (ISP), DWAN, which provided the Internet connection to the complainant through City Channel, a local cable operator, has not been named in the complaint. This omission is highlighted to question the validity of directing the complaint towards the opposite party.
- Request for Dismissal and Compensatory Costs: Finally, the counsel requests that the commission dismiss the complaint due to its baseless nature and grant compensatory costs to the opposite party for being wrongfully implicated and unnecessarily drawn into the litigation.
In essence, the opposite party's argument seeks to clarify their non-involvement in the provision of Internet services and urges the dismissal of the complaint because it is unjustifiably directed at them.
The complainant did not present themselves before the commission, nor was any evidence presented on their behalf. The case had been scheduled for the complainant's evidence since January 05, 2022. Despite the commission's notice on March 08, 2023, urging the complainant to appear and present evidence, there was a consistent failure to attend subsequent hearings. Although his representative requested additional time to present evidence on March 29, 2023, there was no subsequent appearance, and no evidence has been submitted to date. Given the complainant's sporadic attendance and failure to provide the requisite evidence, the commission is left with no choice but to proceed with the judgment based on the evidence at hand. The complainant's repeated absence and failure to submit a proof affidavit or to make further appearances indicate a disinterest in pursuing the case.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this is the 18th day of April 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant submit 2 documents
- A copy of the WhatsApp communications.
- A copy of the complaint filed by the complainant to the Consumer Helpline.
