Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

          The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                      2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  According to the complainant he is a customer of the opposite parties for the last 30 years.  It is admitted that for the last 5 months his telephone connection was defective so that he could not use that telephone.  When he intended to call any person the reply from the telephone are ‘this number does not existing, examine this number etc. etc.  According to the complainant he is aged 87 and suffering all kinds of aged disease he who is suffering a lot due to the act of the opposite parties.  Though the complainant intimated these complaints to 1^st opposite party they did not redress his grievances.  Hence, this case for rectifying the defect of the telephone and for cost, compensation etc. etc.   The opposite party entered appearance and filed their version as follows.  According to the opposite party this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contented that the allegation of the complainant that his telephone was not functioning for the last 5 months is false.  The call detail of the telephone shows that so many outgoing calls are made from that telephone during that period.  It is also contended that the complainant has not registered any complaint of default to opposite parties as alleged and the fault card is evidence in favour of the opposite party.  It is further contended that on 01/06/2017 and on 13/06/2017 the complainant booked complaint and the opposite parties rectified the complaints on the next day itself respectively.   Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party exercising due caution and diligence with regard to the complaints.  Therefore complaint has no right to get any damage form the opposite party.  Therefore the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

                       3. We perused the complaint and version and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                      4.  In order to prove the case of the complainant he who examined as PW1. PW1 deposed in chief examination more or less as per the tune of this complaint. No documents were marked on complaint’s side.  The opposite party’s leaned counsel cross-examined PW1 and not adduced any oral evidence by examine any witness.  After the closure of evidence we heard both side. 

                       5.  Point.No.1:- The opposite party contended that this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  When we evaluate the evidence of this case it is proved that the complainant is a consumer and also a beneficiary of the opposite party.  It is also reveals that as a consumer of the opposite party he is using the telephone and remitting the telephone charges to the opposite party.  This evidence is sufficient to find that the complainant is a consumer and the opposite party is a service provider of the complainant. Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 

            6. Point No. 2 & 3 :- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider point no. 1& 2 together.  The main question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.  It is true that the complainant alleging defect of the telephone as well as inconvenience for making call.  When we go through the chief examination of the complainant it is revealed ‘ഈ കേസിse പരാതിക്കാരനാണ്. 30 വർഷമായിട്ട് ഈ BSNL ഉപഭോക്താവാണ് ഞാൻ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന phone ന് യാതൊരു തകരാർ ഇല്ല.  എനിക്ക് വരുന്ന bills ൽ തുക കൂടുതലായി കാണുന്നു.  ഞാൻ OP സ്ഥാപനത്തിൽ പരാതി പറഞ്ഞപ്പോൾ ഒരു പ്രാവശ്യം bill amount കുറച്ചു തന്നിട്ടുണ്ട്. പരാതി കൊടുത്ത അവസരത്തിൽ എനിക്ക് phone ൽ എവിടെയും വിളിക്കാൻ കഴിഞ്ഞിരുന്നില്ല മറുഭാഗത്ത് number പരിശോധിക്കനാണ് ആവശ്യപ്പെടുന്നത്. എനിക്ക് ഒരു പണിക്കാരനെപ്പോലും വിളിക്കാൻ കഴിയുന്നില്ല’.     

          7. On the basis of the testimony of PW1 in chief examination itself it is clear that there is no defect for the telephone and also revealed that when he raised complaint with regard to the excess bills the opposite party redress the grievances.  If so we are not in a position to find any kind of deficiency on the part of the opposite party.  It is true that the complainant is aged 87 and suffering from age-related diseases.  So we can infer that he is not even capable to make a call by pressing the land phone’s buttons.  We can understand that due to the mistake in dialling, a pre-recorded system message like ‘this number does not existing- examine this number’ comes out.  When the complainant PW1 was cross examined he answered എൻറെ വീട്ടിലെ ആവശ്യങ്ങൾക്ക് ഞാൻ ടി ഫോണിൽ വിളിക്കാറുണ്ട്.  Fsâ ഫോണിനും BSNL line നും ഒരു complaint ഉം ഇല്ല (Q) താങ്കൾ ഉപയോഗിച്ചതിന് (വിളിച്ചതിന്) മാത്രമാണ് തുക വന്നിട്ടുള്ളൂ (A) അല്ല (Q) BSNL sâ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്നും യാതൊരു സേവന വീഴ്ചയും ഉണ്ടായിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നു. (A) ശരിയല്ല (Q) മേലാൽ OP ടെ ഭാഗത്തുനിന്നും ബുദ്ധിമുട്ട് വരാത്ത രീതിയിൽ നിർദ്ദേശം കൊടുത്താൽ സംതൃപ്തനാകുമോ (A) ആകും.

                         8.  On the basis of the testimony given by PW1 it is again confirmed that there is no defect for the telephone but at the same time PW1 is not ready to accept the suggestion raised by the opposite party with regard to the deficiency in service.  Any way PW1 admitted that if this Forum has given a direction to the opposite party for not making any further difficulty he would be satisfied.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case we can’t find any deficiency in service against the opposite party.  However we have to consider the age of the complainant and his apprehension with regard to the attention of his complaints by the opposite party etc. the opposite party is duty bound to ensure the regular telephone connection to the complainant and also bound to attend the defect of the telephone if it arised.  In the light of the above discussion we would like to give a proper direction to opposite party for ensuring regular telephone connection and proper attention to his complaints.  Hence point No. 2 & 3 are also found accordingly. 

                      9.    In the result we pass the following orders. 

1. The opposite party is here by directed to ensure proper telephone service to the complainant and also directed to attend the complaint of this complaint if any arised here after.
2. No order for any cost or compensation.

                  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2017.

                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                     P.Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

                                                                 (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :     (Sd/-)

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  B.M Baby,

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.