Decided on October 21,2010

Taj Television (India) Private Limited Appellant
Veen A Cable Network And Anr Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Sirmaur, at Nahan in Complaint No. 93/2005, dated 15.1.2009, whereby the complaint of the respondent No. 1 was allowed and the appellant was directed to restore Ten Sports Channel to respondent No. 1 within a period of 15 days after receipt of copy of order. In addition to this further directions were made that the appellant shall pay Rs. 40,000 as damages to respondent No. 1 for causing her unnecessary harassment and mental agony, litigation cost was quantified at Rs. 2,000 which was ordered to be paid by the appellant to respondent No. 1. However complaint against performa respondent No. 2 was dismissed being not maintainable.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are respondent No. 1 was provided cable service by the appellant on payment of Rs. 16,800 as connection charges and payment of said amount was made by demand draft No. 287795, dated 7.4.2005 vide Annexure AW -2 which was duly received by the appellant vide acknowledgement Annexure AW -3. Further allegations in the complaint are that despite receipt of aforesaid payment being charges for providing Ten Sports Channel, appellant without prior notice required under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act disconi lected their aforesaid Ten Sports Cable Channel on 18.8.2005 and as a result thereof respondent No. 1 could not transmit the said sports channel to the subscribers from whom the respondent No. 1 was regularly charging monthly subscription and as a result thereof respondent concerned was made to suffer huge financial loss due to arbitrary act of the appellant which amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
(3.) IN this background complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed wherein claim to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation was demanded due to aforesaid arbitrary act/decision of the appellant. The complaint was resisted and contested by respondent No. 1 and had taken preliminary objections regarding maintainability, and jurisdiction of District Forum below to entertain and try the complaint. On merit, it was pleaded that an amount of Rs. 16,800 which was sent through demand draft and was received by proforma respondent No. 2 and as such their plea is to the effect that proforma respondent No. 2 is liable for the same, whereas in fact the amount of demand draft aforesaid was received by the appellant and not by respondent No. 2. This fact also transpired from the record that the name of proforma respondent No. 2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties vide - impugned order dated 15.1.2009.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.