FA.No.1072/2005 against CD.No.56/2003 District Forum, Karimnagar.

Between-

1.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

   A Govt. of India Enterprise,

   Rep. by its Commercial Officer,

   O/o the General Manager, Telecom District,

   Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh.

2.The Accounts Officer, T.R., BSNL,

   Ashok Nagar, Karimnagar, A.P.

…Appellants/O.Ps.1 and 2.

And

B.Govardhan,

R/o.8-4-318, Ganesh Nagar,

Karimnagar, A.P.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Cousnel for the Appellants          - Mr.K.Mohan.

Counsel for the Respondent        -  Notice stage.

QUORUM-THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE LADY MEMBER,

AND

SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, HON’BLE MALE MEMBER.

MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL,

TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.

Oral Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Lady Member)

-------

  passed in CD.No.56/2003, the opposite parties preferred this appeal under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

  On 28.11.2002, he applied for shifting his telephone connection to House No.8-4-318 at Ganeshnagar locality.  On several representations, the telephone authorities gave the telephone connection on 28.01.2003 i.e. after a period of two months.  He alleged that during this period, he had to use public telephone.  In spite of his protest not to charge till the connection is given, he was issued bill and the opposite parties had not given proper response when he met them on 24.02.2008.  Hence, the complainant approached the District Forum seeking direction to the opposite parties to set aside the bill dated 11.02.2003, besides compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

st opposite party filed its counter and the 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.  The complainant had applied on 27.11.2002 for external shift of his telephone connection and it could not be shifted immediately as it was under disconnection process due to non payment of bills.  It was connected after setting clearance A.O(T2) and shift order was issued with work order No.KAA-19415 and KAA 19418.  Meanwhile, the complainant was informed regarding disconnection process and shift  in his contact telephone No.KAA 2284592.  As there was no distribution of cable pair readily available, it was not technically feasible immediately to carry out the work in our door.  The external shift was completed on 27.01.2003.  The delay caused was unavoidable, unintentional and time was required for carrying out the work. The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            Based on the pleadings put forward by both sides and the documentary evidence i.e. Exs.A.1 to A.8, the District Forum allowed the complaint permitting the complainant to pay Rs.748/- only under Ex.A.7 bill and directing the opposite to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.1,000/-.  It directed the opposite parties to adjust these amounts in future bills. 

            Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.

            The learned counsel for the appellants submitted in his grounds that the District Forum failed to appreciate that the complainant had prayed for compensation of Rs.2,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- and that the complainant himself is a defaulter and that when the application to shift the telephone instrument was made, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  The delay was beyond the control of the appellants because the cable pairs were not available.

            We have gone through the material on record.  It is not in dispute that the complainant applied for shifting of his telephone connection on 28.11.2002 and this was done only on 27.01.2003.  The contention of O.P.No.1 that the cable pair was not available at that time is not proved by any documentary evidence.  The opposite parties did not choose to file any documents before the District Forum or before this Commission to prove their case.  It is pertinent to note that the telephone connection was to be shifted in the same locality which opposite parties have taken two months to do, which act we are of the opinion is deficiency of service.  However we are of the opinion that compensation awarded is on the higher side since there is also a direction from the District Forum to adjust the bill amount.  Therefore, we feel it just to reduce the compensation from Rs.5,000/-to Rs.3,000/-.

            In the result, this appeal is allowed in part reducing the compensation to Rs.3,000/- from Rs.5,000/- while confirming the other aspects of the order of the District Forum.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT               LADY MEMBER               MALE MEMBER

DT-21.04.2008.

Vvr.