IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Saturday the 30th day of January, 2016
Filed on 16.07.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.219/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. K. K. Rajeevkumar 1. BSNL Exchange
Panaparambil Veedu Perumbalam
Perumbalam P.O.
Cherthala – 688 570 2. The District General Manager
BSNL., Alappuzha – 11
(By Adv. K.B. Sindhu – for opposite
Parties 1 and 2)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
On 6.5.2015 the complainant had applied for a BSNL broad band connection from Aroor Exchange. But the telephone connection was not made available to the complainant, even after lapse of several months. Hence the complaint is filed seeking direction of this Forum to the opposite party to give telephone connection and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards costs.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
Complainant has already submitted an application on 6.5.2015 under Telephone Exchange, Perumbalam. On perusal of the application of the complainant, for providing this connection, the opposite parties need store items of 500 meters 5 pr cable and 50 meters Drop wire. Due to the non-availability of Stores and technically not feasible, the service order for the above connection is returned for cancellation and so a letter dated 28.5.2015 was given to the complainant by post intimating that the opposite parties are not able to provide connection in this circumstances. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. 4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so the reliefs and costs?
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A3. Opposite party was examined as RW1. One document produced which is marked as Ext.B1. The marking of the document was opposed by the complainant. 5. It is an admitted fact that complainant had applied for BSNL broad band connection on 6.5.2015. According to the opposite party due to the non availability of the Stores and technically not feasible, the service order for providing the connection to the complainant is returned for cancellation. Ext.A1 receipt issued by the BSNL, it shows that complainant paid Rs.500/- for the BSNL broad band connection before the Aroor Exchange on 6.5.2015. According to the complainant, in spite of his repeated requests, the opposite party has not given BSNL connection. The complaint is filed on 16.7.2015. The opposite party made appearance before the Forum on 20.8.2015. The opposite party produced a letter dated 28.5.2015 issued by the Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Perumbalam to the complainant which shows that they informed the complainant that the new area is a non serviceable area of BSNL underground cables. According to the complainant, the said notice was not served to him. Hence, marking of those document is opposed by the complainant. Since the opposite party failed to sent the letter by registered post it cannot be taken as an evidence. It is pertinent to notice that complainant had remitted the amount as per the advertisement given by the opposite party in Mathrubhumi daily. The complainant produced the said advertisement and it marked as Ext.A3(1). While cross examining the RW1 he admitted that said advertisement was given by BSNL Kerala Circle. Complainant stated that he had given the application as per the advertisement of the opposite party. RW1 also admitted that a connection was already given to Mr. P.R. Vidyadharan Phone No.2801 who is residing near to the complainant. Ext.A1 shows that the opposite party had accepted the amount of Rs.500/- remitted by the complainant. If the opposite party had a case that the new area is a non serviceable area of BSNL underground cable, they ought not to have accepted that amount. Since they accepted the amount, they are bound to provide the service to the complainant. The failure on the part of the opposite party in providing the BSNL connection to the complainant after accepting the amounts of Rs.500/- amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to give BSNL connection to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The opposite parties are directed to give Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation to the complainant. There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2016. Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.K. Rajeevkumar (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Cash receipt for Rs.500/-
Ext.A2 - Application dated 18.5.2015 before the Forum
Ext.A3 - Mathrubhumi paper cuttings (2 Nos.)
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Vijayakumaran M.S. (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Letter dated 28.5.2015 (Subject to objection
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
