WORLD VIEW CABLE NETWORK Vs. GURSHARAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the order dated 30.11.1999 of the District Forum, Ropar in Case Nos.233/1999 and 234/1999, World View Cable Network through its proprietor Birdavinder Singh is the appellant. Two complaints were filed against the appellant before the District Forum, Ropar. The Case No.233/1999 was filed by Sh. Gursharan Singh minor son of Sh. Surjit Singh and Case No.234/1999 was filed by Sh. Navjot Singh minor son of Sh. Harminder Singh. The District Forum, Ropar disposed of both the cases by a single judgment because of similarity of facts and version of the parties in both the cases. The complaints were allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to Sh. Gursharan Singh of Case File No.233/1999 an amount of Rs.8,926/- and to Sh. Navjot Singh of Case File No.234/1999 an amount of Rs.13,565/- with interest @ 12% p. a. from 1.4.1999 till actual payments besides a sum of Rs.2,500/- as costs of proceedings in favour of each petitioner.

(2.) When the matter came for hearing before this Commission, it was found that the appellant had filed only one appeal against both the cases and had made Sh. Navjot Singh minor of Case File No.234/1999 as respondent No.2. As per the Consumer Protection Act, any party aggrieved against the order of the District Forum can file an appeal, but the subject matter of two complaints cannot be clubbed into one appeal although the order might have been prepared in one appeal. As a matter of fact, the appellant should have filed two separate appeals, therefore, the appellant was directed to confine his appeal against one party only and he chose to agitate against Sh. Gursharan Singh minor of Case No.233/1999, accordingly vide our order the name of Navjot Singh of Case No.234/1999 as respondent No.2 was deleted.

(3.) The case of the complainant was that on 22.3.1999 vide Receipt No.2374 of Rs.300/-, the respondent gave the cable connection to him and to Sh. Navjot Singh son of Sh. Harminder Singh. The respondent issued the common receipt of the both said connections w. e. f.22.3.1999 to 21.4.1999. The respondent gave the cable connection in the Videocon Colour Television through a cable wire. The grouse of the complainant was that due to the improper fixation of the cable wire, the cable wire touched the main electricity supply wire on the dividing road of Phase 3bii and Sector 71, in S. A. S. Nagar, Mohali. The main electricity supply wire carries the 11000 volts of main supply from the P. C. L. Chowk towards Phase 8, S. A. S. Nagar, Mohali, which is Bhakra Supply line. Due to touching of the cable wire, on 1.4.1999, the heavy electric current passed through the said cable network wire in the colour Television of the complainant which got completely damaged and the cable wire was also burnt. The complainant has alleged deficiency in rendering service on account of the respondent. The complainant has further alleged that he several times requested the respondent in the months of April and May, 1999 to pay him the damages but he refused to pay the same, therefore, he was compelled to file the complaint before the District Forum.