Telegraph Act Does Not Bar Remedy Under Consumer Protection Act, Kozhikode District Commission Orders Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd To Pay Compensation And Legal Costs

Brief Facts of the Case:

Vasantha P (“Complainant”), availed a digital TV (set-top box) connection from Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd (“Asianet”), with subscriber ID No. KA 92002794. She paid an annual subscription fee of Rs. 2,600 for the period from September 2015 to August 2016. However, her TV connection stopped working in December 2015. She promptly approached Asianet with a complaint, but despite her repeated efforts and complaints, the issue remained unresolved. She claimed that this interruption in service caused her mental agony, pain, suffering, and inconvenience. Therefore, she filed a complaint in the Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”) seeking a refund of the subscription fee and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 for the hardships she endured.

Asianet contended that the complaint was not maintainable before the District Commission, asserting that the matter fell under the purview of the Telegraphs Act. They argued that the complainant had requested to shift her cable connection to her newly constructed house, which required re-routing the cable through different properties and obtaining consent from property owners. Asianet maintained that without the necessary consent from property owners, they could not provide the requested connection to the new address. They stated that the set-top box was temporarily disconnected upon receiving the shifting application but was later reactivated at the complainant's old address.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission held that the complaint was indeed maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, of 1986. They emphasized that the provisions of this Act are additional remedies available to consumers and not in derogation of any other laws. Therefore, the Commission had the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint alongside other applicable laws, including the Telegraphs Act.

Furthermore, the District Commission found that there was a clear deficiency of service on the part of Asianet. It was established that the complainant had paid the annual subscription fee in advance for the period from September 2015 to August 2016. However, her TV connection ceased to function in December 2015, and despite her repeated complaints, Asianet failed to resolve the issue promptly. This interruption in her TV service resulted in mental agony, suffering, and inconvenience to the complainant.

Consequently, the District Commission directed Asianet to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000 to the complainant for mental agony and inconvenience. Additionally, it was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Case Title: Smt. Vasantha P vs Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd

Case No.: CC/189/2016

Advocate for the Complainant/Respondent: P.B. Sajith

Advocate for the Appellant/Insurance Company: P.S. Murali

Click Here To Read/Download The Order