Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Neerja Singh, Presiding Member and J.P. Vyas, Member
7, CHANNEL CABLE T.V. NETWORK - Appellant
Versus
ARVIND - Respondent
First Appeal No. 864 of 2007
Decided on : 05-02-2008
Mr. Ajay Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Jatin Rohit Gupta, Advocate, for the Respondent
Lack of notice prior to disconnection and absence of evidence regarding pending dues or arrears can impact the compensation awarded in cases of cable disconnection.
Headnote:
Compensation - Cable Disconnection - The court reduced the compensation awarded to the respondent for cable disconnection to Rs. 100, highlighting the lack of notice prior to disconnection and the absence of evidence regarding pending dues or arrears.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent's cable was disconnected without notice after he refused to pay enhanced rates, leading to a legal dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to provide evidence of pending dues or arrears and did not give notice prior to disconnection. The compensation awarded to the respondent was reduced to Rs. 100.
Issues: Disconnection of cable without notice, payment of enhanced rates, pending dues, and arrears.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of evidence regarding pending dues or arrears, the absence of notice prior to disconnection, and the option for the respondent to choose another service provider if unwilling to pay enhanced rates.
Final Decision: The compensation awarded to the respondent was reduced to Rs. 100, and the rest of the order of the Forum below remained unaltered. No order as to costs.
ORDER
Mrs. Neerja Singh, Presiding Member - This appeal is by the opposite party, aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandsaur, awarding compensation for Rs. 2,000 to the complainant for disconnection of his cable.
2. The respondent's case is that he took a cable connection from the appellant. On 9.11.2006, the appellant took Rs. 100 as dues for the month of September and October. However on 10.11.2006, his cable was disconnected without any notice. On 26.11.2006, the respondent sent a legal notice to which he did not reply.
3. The appellant states that from May 2006 till October 2006, the respondent paid only Rs. 100 and old dues of Rs. 500 are still pending against him. As the rates of pay channels increased from August 2006, the appellant also raised their rates to Rs. 175 per month. The respondent refused to pay the enhanced rates and was rude and insulting. He gave only Rs. 100 as cable charges, so his connection was disconnected.
4. The payment receipt states that Rs. 100 has been received as charges of September and October 2006. There is no mention of any pending dues or arrears. Nor has the appellant placed any evidence on record to demonstrate that he charges Rs. 100 and not Rs. 50 per month, as is demonstrated from the receipt. However neither has the respondent filed any receipts to show that he had made regular payment of Rs. 50 per month. Further if the cable network raised its monthly charges from November 2006, the respondent had the option of either paying those charges or choosing some other service provider. It seems difficult to believe that any cable provider will discontinue his services if he gets regular payment. However, the fact remains that no notice was given to the respondent prior to the disconnection.
5. In the result, the appeal succeeds in part. The compensation awarded to the respondent is reduced to Rs. 100. The rest of the order of the Forum below remains unaltered. No order as to costs.
