SHAKUNTLA RANI Vs. SUN COMMUNICATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant has come up in appeal against the order of the learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the appellant.

(2.) According to the averments made in the complaint, complainant-Smt. Shakuntla Devi got a cable connection from Sun Communications, Model Town, Karnal for her coloured T. V. The opposite party No.1 also gave connections to some other customers through one of the same wire and the amplifier despite protest by the complainant. Therefore on 14th of January, 1994 in a heavy dust storm, the cable wire got connected with the electricity wire and as a result thereof, the chassis of the television got damages causing a loss of Rs.7500/-. It is on that account that the complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of an amount of Rs.7500/- as damages, inasmuch as according to the District Forum, it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since, learned District Forum was not even prima facie satisfied with the claim of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed.

(3.) In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that even if the learned District Forum was not convinced that a prima facie case has been made out in the complaint, it was duty bound to call upon the opposite party for filing the reply and it was only thereafter that a decision could be given. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. Under the Consumer Protection Act, if the District Forum is satisfied that from the complaint no prima facie case is made out in favour of the complainant, the District Forum is not bound to call the opposite party to contest the petition. The District Forum is competent to dispose of the complaint at the initial stage also. In the present case also, while dismissing the complaint the learned District Forum took into consideration the fact that chassis of the television belonging to the complainant could not be damaged without damaging other parts of the television. The concluded portion of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is reproduced as under:-