RAJESWARI STATELLITE vs Y.D. JOSEPH

THE complainant''s case is as follows: THE complainant became a subscriber of Sri Rajeswari SAT vision of which the opposite party is the proprietor. THE opposite party was compelling the complainant to pay @ Rs. 130/- per month which was objected to by the complainant. THE opposite party disconnected the service in November, 1998. THE complainant demanded back the advance. THE opposite party has not chosen to refund the advance and has been dragging on the matter. Hence the complaint was laid.

THE opposite party filed a version stating that he did not receive any advance for the cable connection but according to the conditions, the subscriber or member has to pay the amount due on or before 10th of every month. THE complainant defaulted to make payment continuously for 5 months. THErefore, the service was disconnected on 2.4.1999. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant has laid the false complaint. THE opposite party is not liable for any deficiency in service. The lower Forum directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- with interest @ 18% p.a. along with a cost of Rs. 500/-. Hence the appeal.

Though the complainant says that he paid an advance, he has not chosen to produce any receipt for the same. From the receipts produced by him, we find that he has not been regular in payment of the monthly subscriptions for several months. We find that it is noted in the receipt that a sum of Rs. 50/- is still due. The opposite party has taken a stand that they have given a card in which they regularly note the subscriptions and that the card will show that the complainant has not paid the subscription from the month of December, 1998 for 4 months continuously. The lower Forum has observed that though there is no receipt produced for the payment of advance, the District Forum is aware of the fact that in the town of Cuddalore, cable connections are given only if an advance of Rs. 500/- is paid. We do not know on what basis such a statement is made by the Forum. That the Forum which has been presided over by a retired District Judge should make such an observation is quite amusing. When the complainant specifically states that he has paid a sum of Rs. 1,200/- as advance and when he has produced receipts for the payment of monthly subscription, why is it that he has not been able to produce such a receipt for the advance is really astounding. It is for the complainant to show what was the amount paid by him either advance or as charges for connection. Without any basis, the lower Forum has come to the conclusion that the lower Forum has knowledge to conclude that in the town area of Cuddalore for every connection a sum of Rs. 500/- is received and, therefore, on that basis has stated that a sum of Rs. 500/- must have been received by the opposite party. This is really a preposterous proposition. The Forum has to act judiciously and only on materials made available before the same. It cannot import its own knowledge or its expertise in the art of guessing to come to a conclusion with regard to matters which are in dispute before it. The lower Forum has stated that there is no deficiency in service in the matter of disconnection of the service. After having concluded that there is no deficiency in service the direction of the lower Forum to the opposite party requiring him to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- with a cost of Rs. 500/- is really strange. It is an absurd order and a contradictory order at that. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside this untenable order passed by the lower Forum.

IN the result, this appeal is allowed with cost of Rs. 250/- The order passed by the lower Forum will stand set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed with cost of Rs. 100/-. Time for payment: Two months. Appeal allowed.