Dr. K.E. Moses Vs. Mahak Cable Network

Dr. K.E. Moses vs Mahak Cable Network

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi Decided Aug 06, 1998

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1113705

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1113705
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
Judge: A.P. Chowdhri, President &Amp; Desh Bandhu, Member
Decided On: Aug 06, 1998
Case Number: Case No. A-81 of 1998
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(g) - Comparative Citations: 1999 (1) CLT 631, 1999 (1) CPR 329, 1999 (1) CPC 177, 1998 (3) CPJ 367

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. K.E. Moses

Respondent

Mahak Cable Network

Excerpt

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g) - comparative citations: 1999 (1) clt 631, 1999 (1) cpr 329, 1999 (1) cpc 177, 1998 (3) cpj 367.....complaint in writing with the cable operator in case there was any deficiency in service. in the absence of such a complaint, the case of the complainant was not credible. with these observations, the complaint was dismissed. hence this appeal. the respondent failed to appear inspite of service in the appeal. 3. we find no infirmity in the order of the district forum insofar as it relates to increase in charges from rs. 100/- to rs. 150/- as these are not regulated by law. with regard to the other part of the case, we are unable to agree with the district forum. it is not expected that a person would lodge a report in writing to his cable operator. what is more natural is to ring up the cable operator and bring the fault to his notice. there is no reason for the district forum for not accepting the affidavit of the complainant especially when the same had not been controverted. we, therefore, allow the appeal and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, direct the respondent to pay rs. 1,500/- as compensation to the complainant/ appellant within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which he will be liable to be proceeded against u/sec. 27 of the act. a copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as district forum-iii. appeal disposed of.

Full Judgment

A.P. Chowdhri, President:

1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant obtained cable connection from the opposite partys Cable T.V. Network. According to the complainant, in January, 1996, the said cable remained disconnected for four days in a row and again in December, 1996 the cable gave away and was not set-right for days together inspite of the matter having been reported to the opposite party. Lastly, according to the complainant, the charges made by the opposite party were enhanced from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- in January, 1997 without any justification.

2. The opposite party failed to appear before the District Forum and contest the claim. The District Forum held that the question of charges for cable service were not regulated by law and raising of charges could not, therefore, be gone into in the present proceedings. With regard to the other averments of the complainant, it was observed that the complainant must have normally lodged a complaint in writing with the cable operator in case there was any deficiency in service. In the absence of such a complaint, the case of the complainant was not credible. With these observations, the complaint was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

The respondent failed to appear inspite of service in the appeal.

3. We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum insofar as it relates to increase in charges from Rs. 100/- to Rs. 150/- as these are not regulated by law. With regard to the other part of the case, we are unable to agree with the District Forum. It is not expected that a person would lodge a report in writing to his cable operator. What is more natural is to ring up the cable operator and bring the fault to his notice. There is no reason for the District Forum for not accepting the affidavit of the complainant especially when the same had not been controverted. We, therefore, allow the appeal and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,500/- as compensation to the complainant/ appellant within 4 weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which he will be liable to be proceeded against u/Sec. 27 of the Act. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties as well as District Forum-III.

Appeal disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New ... Same Parties Dr. K.E. Moses vs Mahak Cable Network Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge A.P. Chowdhri, President &Amp; Desh Bandhu, Member

Land Acquisition