AVINASH GOYAL Vs. UNITED CABLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT has filed this application under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the "CP Act") for punishing the non -applicant for non -compliance/disobedience of the order dated 14.3.2014 passed by this Commission in R.P. No. 11/2014. By order dated 28.2.2014 this Commission issued a direction to non -applicant to provide a cable connection to applicant. However, by order dated 14.3.2014 this order was modified as "provide/restore" one cable connection to the applicant. By order dated 11.11.2014, passed in this MJC it was observed that the applicant shall pay the charges of the cable connection restored by the non -applicant on 12.6.2014. It is alleged by the applicant that the copy of the orders passed in revision were sent to non -applicant on 25.3.2014, but he deliberately did not obey the said orders. In an application for urgent hearing filed by the applicant on 2.12.2014 applicant contended that one cable connection of the applicant was restored on 12.6.2014. In compliance of the order passed on 11.11.2014 applicant sent a money order for Rs. 385 by way of monthly charges for the connection for seven months, but non -applicant refused to accept the same. Applicant further contended that the restored connection was again severed, therefore, the non -applicant was liable to be punished under Section 27 of the CP Act.

(2.) IN reply to the accusations made by the applicant, non -applicant submitted reply supported with his affidavit stating that he did not disobey the order passed by this Commission. After receiving the order passed by the Commission, his worker went to the house of the applicant for inspecting the cable TV connection, but applicant's father did not permit him to check the connection. Non -applicant sought permission from applicant on mobile to check the cable connection, but no reply was given. On 12.5.2014 non -applicant sent a letter to applicant enquiring about the cable connection, but no information was given by the applicant. On the same day when non -applicant's technician went to the house of applicant he found that the set -top box of the connection was defective. He, therefore, replaced the said set -top box with his service box having card No. 000123297194. The card number of the defective box was 000030318299. According to non -applicant since applicant did not permit the technicians of the non -applicant to check the cable connection, the said connection could not be restored. Non -applicant contended that the applicant disobeyed the order passed by the Commission on 11.11.2014 by sending Rs. 385 only by the money order towards the cable charges for seven months. In fact, the cable charge for one month is Rs. 220, therefore, applicant ought to have sent Rs. 1540.

(3.) IN support of the application filed under Section 27 of the CP Act, no affidavit of any witness has been filed by the applicant. Applicant has filed affidavit in support of the application for urgent hearing filed on 2.12.2014 wherein he stated that the cable connection was restored on 12.6.2014 and that he had sent the money order for Rs. 385 to non -applicant. Applicant in the said application has laid emphasis by underlining and recording in bold letters that this case was only for disobedience of the order passed for restoring one connection and the determination of the rent/charges for the cable connection was not the subject matter of the case before the Commission.