ASIANET SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS LTD vs T N NINAN

-THE appellant is the 1st opposite party, the Managing Director of Asianet Satelite Communications Ltd. who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation and to return $ 300 with 12% interest from 5. 7. 1994 after deducting Rs. 4,200 already paid towards interest and also to pay cost of Rs. 500 and also interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of compensation.

THE grievance of the complainant is that he had paid a sum of $ 300 on 5. 3. 1994 believing the offer of the appellant vide NRI Privilege Connection Scheme as per which on remittance of the amount by the NRIs cable connection will be given to the residence of the person or his nominee. The complainant is the power of attorney holder of his son who was working abroad. It is the case of the complainant that after receipt of the amount cable connection was not given to his residence till the date of the complaint. He has sought for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. On the other hand, the opposite parties had contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the scheme was launched confining to the municipal area of Chengannur. It is also contended that the complainant''s son misguided them that his residence is within the area of Chengannur Municipality. Subsequently, it was found that he is residing far away from Chengannur Municipality.

Complainant is examined as P. W. 1 and Exts. P1 to P6 documents were marked. Ext. P3 is the receipt for payment of $ 300. Exts. P1 and P5 are the brochures of the scheme as per which the connection is offered on payment of the amount in foreign currency. In Ext. P1 brochure the appellant has undertaken to pay interest on FCNRI (foreign currency) from the 4th month till the actual date of connection. It is also seen from the above brochure that a delegation of the Asianet had gone to Middle East countries to canva deposits.

WE find that the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that the complainant is residing far away from Chengannur Municipality. The evidence of P. W. 1 could not be discredited in the cross examination. Further the contention of the appellant that the son of the complainant had misled the opposite parties by giving his address as within the municipal limits is disproved from the recitals in Ext. P6 receipt wherein the address given is the same address of the complainant as in the complaint filed. As already noted above no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to support the above version. Evidently from the date of receipt of the amount i. e. 5. 3. 1994 till the period of filing of the complaint i. e. in 2002 no cable connection has been provided to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find that the particular offer is devoid of bona fides. The scheme ought to have been floated after making arrangements to provide the connection. Evidently there was no infrastructure to connect the cable in complainant''s area. The fact that for about 8 years the complainant could not be provided with cable connection would clearly show that there was no bona fides in the offer made. The undertaking in the brochure that if connection could not be provided within 3 months interest would be paid on the amount received would clearly give rise to an expectation that the cable connection would be provided at least within 3 months. We find that the above type of activity really amounts to unfair trade practice which is sought to be prohibited by the statute i. e. the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN the circumstances the contention of the appellant that the proceeding is barred by limitation which according to the Counsel for the appellant starts from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the amount cannot be upheld. The appellant had kept the expectation of the complainant alive till the date of filing of the complaint or some proximate period before the date of filing of the complaint. We find that the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation cannot be upheld. Evidently the complainant has invested $ 300 in March 1994 on which date the amount represented a substantial sum and that too in foreign currency. Of course the amount of compensation ordered i. e. Rs. 75,000 appears to be on the higher side. In the circumstances the order is modified that the appellant will pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000 to the complainant. Order that the above amount will carry interest at 9% per annum is deleted. The appellant will also be liable to repay the amount equal to the monitory value of $ 300 with interest at 12% from 5. 7. 1994 less Rs. 4,200 already paid towards interest. The order to pay cost of Rs. 500 is not interfered with. The amounts are to be paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount of compensation will carry interest at 18% from the due date. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.