National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Supriyo Raychaudhuri vs Gtpl Kolkata Cable And Broadban ... on 25 February, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 50 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 03/12/2019 in Appeal No. 739/2018 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. SUPRIYO RAYCHAUDHURI S/O. S.K. RAYCHAUDHURI R/O. 66D, SUREN SARKAR ROAD, P.S. BELIAGHATA, DISTRICT-KOLKATA-700010 WEST BENGAL ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. GTPL KOLKATA CABLE AND BROADBAN PARISEVA LTD. 86, GOLAGHATA ROAD, KOLKATA-700048 WEST BENGAL 2. B B CABLE NETWORK AT 20A, SURA 3RD LANE, P.S. BELIGHATA KOLKATA-700010 WEST BENGAL ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Supriyo Raychaudhuri (In Person) For the Respondent :
Dated : 25 Feb 2020 ORDER
1. The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that he is a subscriber of Respondent No.2/local cable operator under Respondent No.1/GTPL Kolkata Cable and Broadband Pariseva Ltd., who is the Multi System Operator (MSO). The Petitioner utilized the cable services through the rental set top box from December, 2012 to June, 2017, i.e. when the television set of the Complainant got completely damaged. The set top box was taken by Respondent No.1 for repairs and later a new set top box was provided free of cost, but the television set was not functioning. Hence, the Petitioner approached the District Forum with following prayers: -
"(a) That the LCO return the old STB of your Complainant removed from the residence of your Complainant on 23rd June, 2017 and stated to lying in the repairing shop of the MSO together with the remote control hand set of the old set top box which was collected from your Complainant on 4th August, 2017 in exchange for the new remote control hand set of the new STB.
(b) LCO furnish your Complainant receipts for payments made to him towards price of the new STB supplied and installed at the residence of your complainant, together with a bill for the STB so purchased.
(c) That pending disposal of the case, the LCO with MSO ensure continuous and uninterrupted service of the channels subscribed by your Complainant without imposing any pressure tactics by any means, including by the local people working for them or otherwise known to them through business connections.
(d) That the LCO and MSO jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) as compensation for harassment, mental agony, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice."
2. The Respondents/Opposite Parties contested the matter that the Petitioner/Complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that there was no deficiency of service on their part and the Complaint be dismissed.
3. The District Forum after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record dismissed the Complaint, vide order dated 25.07.2018, with the following observation:-
"It appears from the evidence of the complainant as well as from the materials on record that on the basis of the complaint lodged by the complainant STB was replaced and another STB was provided which was also not functioning and was providing picture in the said TV. The Ops raised objection that the TV in question had some technical defects for which cable operation i.e. OP No.2 cannot be held liable for the non-functioning of the TV. Whenever such points were raised by OPs regarding the normal functioning of the said TV the Complainant ought to have produced an expert's opinion to the effect that the TV was functioning in normal way, but due to the cable connection or the STB provided by OPs he was not in a position to enjoy the TV programme. Since the Complainant has failed to prove that the TV in question was functioning in normal way particularly when OPs challenged the normal functioning of the TV, therefore, we hold that the case filed by the Complainant has got no merit and the Complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence ordered, That the case No.259 of 2017 is dismissed on contest without cost against the OPs.
4. Against the order of the District Forum, an Appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties, affirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the Appeal.
5. Heard the Petitioner in person. The Petitioner has availed the services of Respondent No.2/local cable operator for watching programmes on the television. Respondent No.2 had initially supplied a rental set top box in December, 2012 and the Petitioner received the cable signals through the same till 20.02.2017. Since midnight of 22.06.2017 he could not see the programmes on his television set. The set top box provided by Respondent No.1 was taken for repair and thereafter a new set top box, free of cost, was provided to the Petitioner but still the Petitioner could not watch the television. It is evident that the Respondents provided prompt services to the Petitioner by taking the set top box for repair and later providing a new set top box free of cost. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. The Petitioner has not provided any evidence to the effect that the television set which was to receive the signals and screen the programme was in order and that the fault was with the set top box. The television did receive the signals for many years through the same set top box and the Petitioner saw programmes on the same television uninterruptedly. Later, the service provider did what all he could do or is expected of a service provider, including replacing the set top box free of cost. I see no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents. Hence, the Revision Petition stands dismissed at the admission stage.
...................... C. VISWANATH PRESIDING MEMBER