SHAKUNTLA RANI vs SUN COMMUNICATIONS

COMPLAINANT has come up in appeal against the order of the learned District Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that no prima facie case has been made out in favour of the appellant.

ACCORDING to the averments made in the complaint, complainant-Smt. Shakuntla Devi got a cable connection from Sun Communications, Model Town, Karnal for her coloured T.V. The opposite party No. 1 also gave connections to some other customers through one of the same wire and the amplifier despite protest by the complainant. Therefore on 14th of January, 1994 in a heavy dust storm, the cable wire got connected with the electricity wire and as a result thereof, the chassis of the television got damages causing a loss of Rs. 7500/-. It is on that account that the complainant approached the District Forum for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 7500/- as damages, inasmuch as according to the District Forum, it amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since, learned District Forum was not even prima facie satisfied with the claim of the complainant, the complaint was dismissed. In the appeal before us, the learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that even if the learned District Forum was not convinced that a prima facie case has been made out in the complaint, it was duty bound to call upon the opposite party for filing the reply and it was only thereafter that a decision could be given. We do not agree with the contention of the learned Counsel. Under the Consumer Protection Act, if the District Forum is satisfied that from the complaint no prima facie case is made out in favour of the complainant, the District Forum is not bound to call the opposite party to contest the petition. The District Forum is competent to dispose of the complaint at the initial stage also. In the present case also, while dismissing the complaint the learned District Forum took into consideration the fact that chassis of the television belonging to the complainant could not be damaged without damaging other parts of the television. The concluded portion of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is reproduced as under:- "As a matter of common observation, the Cable for T.V. is covered with a thick layer of insulator it is not clear as to how the cable wire could be responsible for causing damage to the chassis of the T.V. No details have been given. Prima facie the version of the complainant cannot prevail. It is unimaginable that only the chassis of the T.V. would get damaged without burning other parts of the T.V. No prima facie case in favour of the complainant is made out."

We are in complete agreement with the approach of the learned District Forum and do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.