IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 5th day of September, 2016
Filed on 17..02..2016
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
C.C.No.55/2016
between
Complainants:- Opposite Parties:-
- Sri. N.A. Ajayan 1. Sri. Jayaraj, Moni Ben Cable
Nikarthilchira, CMC – 2 Moni Ben Cable Collection
Velorvattom, Cherthala P.O. Cherthala
Alappuzha
2. The Manager, Mani Ben Cable
2. Sri. N.G.Aravindakshan Asan Network, Cherthala
-do- -do- (By Adv. Radhakrishnan Associates)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant is that the complainants are the consumers of the opposite parties. The first complainants remitted an amount of Rs.2,600/- and availed Set-top box from the opposite parties. The complainant also paid an amount of Rs.1360/- towards dues of the monthly payment of the cable connection. The complainants requested for receipt, but so far no receipt was given by the opposite parties. Now the opposite parties disconnected the cable connection without any prior intimation, the complainant sustained mental agony and hence filed this complaint seeking reinstatement of the cable connection along with compensation and costs.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties, they appeared before the Forum and opposite parties filed separate version. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant is not a consumer of the first opposite party. The complainant availed cable connection from the Mani Ben Cable Networks. The complainants have not remitted the monthly payment of Rs.180/- from 2015 July onwards. Even though first opposite party requested the complainants to remit the due amount they have not paid the dues. So after giving necessary notice, the connection was disconnected. The first opposite party is only a collection agent of the Moni Ben Cable Networks and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party and hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the first opposite party.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The 2nd opposite party is only a manager of the firm. The complainants availed 3 connections from the opposite party and the complainants defaulted in paying the monthly remittance from 2015 July. These connections were disconnected after giving necessary notice to the complainants the complainants had not paid the due. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The opposite parties filed proof affidavit and produced two documents marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the copy of notice issued to the 2nd complainant and Ext.B2 is the detailed bill.
5. Considering the allegations of the complainant and the contentions of the opposite parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?
6. The case of the complainants is that they availed Set-top box after remitting an amount of Rs.2600/- each and also paid an amount of Rs.1360/- towards dues of the monthly payments. The complainants requested for receipt, but the opposite party has not given any receipt so far. Now the opposite party disconnected the cable connection without any prior intimation, hence filed this complaint.
7. According to the opposite parties, the complainants have not remitted the monthly payments from July 2015 onwards. Since the complainants were defaulted in remitting the monthly payments for a period of 7 months, the opposite party issued notice to the complainants intimating that if they have not paid due amounts, within 7 days connection will be disconnected. But the complainants failed to remit the due amount, so the 2nd opposite party disconnect the cable connection. In order to substantiate their contention they produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 demand and disconnection notice issued to the complainant, but according to the complainant he has not received such notice. Also the opposite party has not produced any proof to show that Ext.B1 was served to the complainant. Further from Ext.B1 it is not clear that when Ext.B1 was served to the complainant. From Ext.B2 it can be seen that an amount of Rs.1260/- was due from the complainant. Since the opposite parties disconnected the cable connection without giving prior intimation amounts to deficiency in service and the complainants are entitled to get the relief.
8. The 2nd opposite party in their version stated that the complainants availed 3 connections, if so the 2nd opposite party is at liberty to collect the monthly payments for each connection from the date of reconnection.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to reinstate the cable connection within 2 days from the date of receipt of this order, and the complainants are directed to remit the due amount of Rs.1260/- simultaneously. Failing which the 2nd opposite party is also directed to give Rs.100/- per day till the date of reconnection. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation. No further amount as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 5th day of September, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - N. Aravindakshan Asan (Witness)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
Ext.B1 - Copy of the notice issued to the 2nd complainant
Ext.B2 - Detailed bill
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
