Per Shri S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 13/12/2004 passed in consumer complaint No.46/2004, Smt.Kondabai Suryabhan Hegade V/s. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur.
2. It is the grievance of the complainant that while taking telephone connection under Non-OYT category for senior citizen, it was assured to her that installation charges and the rental charges would not be charged. However, subsequently, such charges were levied and therefore, this consumer complaint is filed. It is the case of the department that no such assurance was given. They are bound by the circulars of the department and the charges are levied as per the category of the connection as applicable to the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service. Upholding the contention of the department, the consumer complaint stood dismissed and therefore, this appeal is filed by the org. complainant.
3. Both the parties remained absent in spite of intimation given earlier by publishing notice on Notice Board of this Commission, Bar and on Internet as well as separate intimation given by post on 01/10/2011. Under the circumstances, we proceed to consider the appeal for admission on merit on the basis of available record.
4. In the instant case, complainant did not submit anything to show that the official of the Telephone Department had assured about the waiver of the charges for installation and rental as per the standard procedure and the rates for the category of telephone connection given to the complainant. But the department had levied the charges. Therefore, there cannot be any deficiency in service on the part of the department. Thus, we uphold the finding of the Learned Forum on this count.
5. Apart from this, the grievance is against the BSNL and said institution is not made a party. The ‘Telecom District Manager’ being a distinct, separate and independent jurisdic person within meaning of Section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, it is not a case of mis-description of a party. Under the circumstances, the complaint, as filed, is not tenable as it is not against the telecom service provider.
6. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any fault with the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal stands dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 18th January 2012.
