Consumer Commission Orders Asianet to Pay Compensation for Deficiency of Service

Consumer Commission Orders Asianet to Pay Compensation for Deficiency of Service

The Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CDRC) presided over by P.C. Paulachen (President), V. Balakrishnan (Member), and Priya (Member), held Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. liable for deficient service for disconnecting the complainant's digital TV connection even after she had paid the annual subscription fee of ₹2,600. The Commission rejected Asianet's objection to jurisdiction, which argued that the matter fell under the Telegraph Act. The Commission noted that the Consumer Protection Act provides additional remedies for consumers and does not override other laws.

Vasantha P subscribed to a digital TV (set-top box) service from Asianet for the period from September 2015 to August 2016, paying an annual subscription fee of ₹2,600. However, her TV connection stopped working in December 2015. Despite repeated complaints to Asianet, the issue remained unresolved, causing her mental anguish, pain, suffering, and inconvenience. She therefore filed a complaint with the Kozhikode District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (District Commission), seeking a refund of the subscription fee and compensation of ₹1,00,000 for the hardships she endured.

Asianet objected to the complaint, arguing that it fell under the Telegraph Act and was therefore not within the jurisdiction of the District Commission. They claimed that the complainant had requested to move her TV connection to a newly constructed house, which required routing the cable through multiple properties and obtaining permission from the property owners. Asianet maintained that without such consent, they could not provide the requested connection to the new address. They stated that the set-top box was temporarily disconnected upon receipt of the shifting request, but was later reactivated at the complainant's old address.

The District Commission overruled Asianet’s objections while asserting that the complaint was indeed admissible under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It underlined that the provisions of this Act provide additional remedies for consumers and do not override other laws. Therefore, the Commission had jurisdiction to hear the complaint alongside other relevant laws, including the Telegraphs Act.

Additionally, the District Commission established that Asianet had breached its service obligations. The complainant had paid the annual subscription fee in advance for the period from September 2015 to August 2016, but her TV connection stopped working in December 2015. Despite repeated complaints, Asianet failed to resolve the issue promptly, causing the complainant mental anguish, suffering, and inconvenience.

As a result of its findings, the District Commission ordered Asianet to pay the complainant ₹20,000 in compensation for the mental anguish and inconvenience she had suffered. Additionally, it was ordered to pay ₹5,000 as the cost of the proceedings.