Kerala

Idukki

CC/08/203

Muhammed Musthafa - Complainant(s)

Versus

B S N L Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sebastian V C

30 Jul 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKIConsumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
CONSUMER CASE NO. 08 of 203
1. Muhammed MusthafaBlock No.1366, Anappara House, Nedumkandom P.O, Idukki- 685553IdukkiKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. B S N L LimitedRepresented by its Sub Divisional Engineer, Customer Service Centre SDE (CSR-B/E), Thodupuzha P.O, Idukki- 685584IdukkiKerala ...........Respondent(s)


For the Appellant :
For the Respondent :

Dated : 30 Jul 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of July, 2009


 

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER


 

C.C No.203/2008

Between

Complainant : Muhammed Musthafa,

Block No.1366,

Anappara House, Nedumkandam P.O.

Idukki District.

Pin: 685 553.

(By Adv: V.C. Sebastian)

And

Opposite Party : The Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL Limited,

Customer Service Centre SDE (CSR-B/E)

Thodupuzha P.O.

Thodupuzha, Idukki District.

Pin: 685 584.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)


 

O R D E R


 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)


 

Complainant is a resident of Nedumkandam. He is a business man have dealings with abroad. Complainant had a post paid mobile connection. On 17/04/2008 he contacted with opposite party and obtained a post paid mobile connection with Number 9446352648. At this time opposite party given another phone free of cost, it's number is 9446382648. On 27.04.2008 complainant again approached to opposite party for an International roaming facility. Then the opposite party took back the mobile phone Sim card with number 9446352648 and supplied another Sim card with same number and told that it has International roaming facility. Opposite party collected Rs.5,500/- for consideration of this on 27.05.2008. Complainant was already holding a land phone connection of BSNL as number 232648 in his residence at Nedumkandam. Opposite party provided International roaming facility, in this Sim card and stated that it will function automatically when used. On 28.05.2008 the complainant went abroad to Kuwait, when the complainant used the Phone 9446352648, it does not work because there was no roaming facility. He contacted to opposite party and with the advise of opposite party he approached Telephone operators of Kuwait but have no result, again he complined to opposite party at Thodupuzha but no action had taken. He could not proceed his business and returned to India on 1.06.2008. On 23.06.2008 complainant sent a Notice to opposite party through post as well as courier. But no reply received hence this petition filed before this Forum. Complainant claimed cost and compensation from opposite party.


 

2. Opposite party filed written version. In the written version, it is admitted that complainant applied for a post paid mobile connection on 17.04.2008 and the same has been activated on 17.04.2008 itself, then the complainant applied for ISD and International roaming facility on 27.04.2008. Opposite party had given International roaming facility and collected Rs.5,500/- from complainant. Opposite party checked the Sim in front of complainant, and advised him that if any difficulty arise contact to SDE's mobile number, if the complainant contacted remedial measures could have been taken to get their service.


 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?


 

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4(g) and MO1 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite parties.


 

5. The POINT:- Complainants brother filed authorization and examined as PW1. Ext.P1 is the cash receipt dated 27.05.2008. Ext.P2(series) is the Notice copy dated on 23.06.2008 with postal receipt. Ext.P3 is the bill receipt dated 29.05.2008. Ext.P4(a) is the passport copy of complainant. Ext.P4(b) is the Air ticket copy of complainant. Ext.P4(d) is the return ticket copy of complainant. Ext.P4(e) is the Airport seal copy. Ext.P4(f) is the copy of residence certificate at Kuwait. Ext.P4(g) is the complainant's residence certificate at Kuwait and MOI is the Sim card of complainant. On the part of opposite party DW1 is examined and marked Ext.R1. Ext.R1 is the application of complainant for mobile connection. PW1 have only hear say evidence. PW1 have no direct knowledge of disputed fact. Complainant is now also in abroad and doing business there. International mobile connection is not affected his business. Opposite party admitted Ext.P1. Ext.P1 is the cash collected receipt. PW1 states that complainant contacted opposite party in many times, and with the advise of opposite party, he approached to the operator of Kuwait, but no evidence produced to support this. DW1 deposed, there is chance of default in International roaming facility due to Technical deffect. DW1 stated that if the complainant contacted to them, they would arrange remedial measures. Receipt of copy of complaint from this Forum is also a type of information, but opposite party had not taken any remedial measures to that effect. BSNL a Government of India's Entreprise have no means to check the International roaming facility. They supplied a defective mobile connection with chances of error, which is admitted by DW1. India's one of the largest enterprise should keep its goodwill, and Trust. To market such an unconditional product is come under deficiency of service.

 

Hence the petition allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,500/- which is collected from the complainant for the cell phone connection and Rs.1,500/- as cost of this petition to the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.


 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July,2009.


 

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

 

 

APPENDIX


 

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - D.A. Abdhulkarim

On the side of Opposite Parties :

DW1 - R.Sadeeshachandran

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - Copy of Receipt for Rs.5,500/-, dated 27-05-2008.

Ext.P2(series) - Copy of Notice dated 23-06-08 and Postal receipt.

Ext.P3 - Copy of Bill Receipt for Rs.566/-, dated 29-05-2008.

Ext.P4 - Air Mail Cover.

Ext.P4(a) series - Passport copy of complainant.

Ext.P4(b) - Air ticket copy of complainant.

Ext.P4(c) - Airport seal

Ext.P4(d) - Return ticket copy of complainant.

Ext.P4(e) - Airport seal copy.

Ext.P4(f) - Copy of Residence Certificate at Kuwait.


 

Ext.MO1 - Mobile phone sim card.

On the side of Opposite Parties :

Ext.R1 - Application of complainant for mobile connection.


 


HONORABLE Sheela Jacob, MemberHONORABLE Laiju Ramakrishnan, PRESIDENTHONORABLE Bindu Soman, Member