To-day is fixed for admission hearing.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant files hazira.
Heard the Ld lawyer. Perused the complaint and the documents thereto.
The case of the complainant is, in brief, that he hails from Kalimpong and has a land telephone connection in his shop styed “Roshni Hardware”. The said telephone got out of order in the first week of July 2018 and the complainant informed OP No.1 (BSNL Kalimpong) and also OP No.2 (BSNL, Siliguri) and sent e-mail on 18.08.2018, 21.08.2018 and 30.08.2018 requesting for repair to working condition. The complainant approached the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice, Siliguri, who, in turn, sent notice to OP No.2 twice, - on 11.09.2018 and 27.11.2018 - but the OP No.2 (BSNL, Siliguri) did not turn up. Hence is the case.
Considered. The complaint lacks the mention of mode of receiving and payment of bills by the complainant. Nor has the complainant explained in his petition how the billing and monitoring of the said telephone done by BSNL, Siliguri, is also cause of action. This question arises because in case of any gap in communication from OP No.1 to OP No.2, the latter cannot be held responsible.
In Para-8 of the complainant, the complainant has stated that he was instructed by OP No.1 (at Kalimpong) to intimate the matter to the OP No.2 (at Siliguri). But the complainant has not enclosed any copy of such instruction with his complaint.
The complainant has further stated in para-10, ibid, that OP No.2 gave instruction ;to the OP No.1 to resolve the issued. A copy of such instruction should have been attached with the complainant as supporting document.
It is stated by the complainant in his complaint (vide para-10) that after receiving first notice from the O/O-C.A & F.B.P, Siliguri, the OP No.2 gave instruction to the OP No.1 and the technician of OP No.1 made the telephone good. On the other hand, it transpires from what is stated in para-5 that the problem
Continue…….
Consumer Case No. 18/S/2019.
was resolved and the telephone was repaired and was in working condition on the 02nd week of July 2018/. The said first notice dates. 11th September, 2018. This ante-date effect of the notice is not explained in the complaint.
Thus the relevancy/connection of the OP No.2 with the instant complaint could not be found out from any angle. And OP No.2 only is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum while the land phone stopped working at Kalimpong and the office of the OP No.1(Sub-divisional. Telecom officer) is also at Kalimpong. Hence, the complaint, being barred by Sec. 11(2) of the C.P. Act. 1986, is not admitted.
