Tribunals and Commissions(2007) 12 NCDRC CK 0025

ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD vs MOHAMMED FAISEL A

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission · Decided on 14 December 2007 · Citation: 2008 3 CPJ 477

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.R.Udayabhanu , Valsala Sarangadharan J.

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 341 words
1.

-THE appellant is the opposite party-Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. , who are under orders to desist from charging at the rate of Rs. 50 per month of the additional cable connection from the complainant.

2.

THE grievance of the complainant is that the Asianet floated an offer with a one time fee of Rs. 500 the subscribers can avail additional connection without any monthly charge. The complainant accordingly opted for the offer and paid Rs. 500. Subsequently the appellant issued bills charging at the rate of Rs. 50 for the additional connection from 1. 4. 2000 onwards. It is a case that the appellant retreated from the earlier offer and hence the above action amounts to deficiency in service. The appellant contended before the Forum that subsequently costs for everything increased. The paid channels are charging higher rates from the appellant and hence the appellant not in a position to provide free additional connection without monthly payments.

We find that the contention of the appellant that the terms of agreement with subscribers vide Ext. D6 enabled the appellant to enhance rates, etc. cannot be countenanced. There is nothing to show that the complainant was made aware of the above terms. The fact that there was such an offer is not denied. All the same considering the fact of all round enhancement of the cost of transmission, etc. the case set up by the appellant cannot be rejected altogether. In view of the offer of free additional connection on deposit of Rs. 500 the appellant ought not to have charged the additional connection subsequently. Evidently the above stated action amounts to unfair trade practice. But we find that it may not be possible to continue the above offer in future. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is to be modified to the effect that the appellant would be entitled to collect charges for the additional connection only from the date of this order. The order of the Forum is modified accordingly. Appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.