The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

          2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant filed a Telephone application before the 2^nd opposite party on the basis of an advertisement published by 1^st opposite party.  According to the complainant, the advertisement purported to provide telephone connection and broad band connection forthwith to the public without receiving any amount.  Even though there was an advertisement for free connection as stated above 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs.500/- for a new connection and the complainant remitted it for obtaining the new connection on 16.05.2015.  He again stated that, he approached the officers concerned several time for obtaining the said connection, the opposite parties failed to give it in the stipulated time.  The 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that, the delay was caused due to the pendency of the Kerala Water Authority work in that area.  Hence the opposite parties directed the complainant to wait for a little time for the connection.  He again contented that, the delay caused for the telephone connection is due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and opposite parties are liable to the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed this case before this Forum for directing the opposite parties to install a new connection as requested by the complainant and for cost and compensation.

                     3. This Forum entertains the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version as follows.  According to the opposite parties, the alleged advertisement published by the BSNL as alleged by the complainant was not true.  The time of intimation of the installation of new connection shall be communicated to the telephone subscribers only after site inspection.   This communication is impossible at the time of booking of a new telephone.  This opposite parties again contented that, even though a new telephone application is received from the complainant on 16.05.2015 due to non availability of drop wire, damages occurred to main 800 pairs of connection and due to prolonged rain the above said delay was caused.  On 16.07.2015 in pursuance of complainant’s application a new telephone connection has been granted with Telephone No. 221223.  Usually the telephone number is allotting at the time of booking of the telephone.  The opposite parties specifically pleaded that, there was no willful delay on the part of them and there was no deficiency in service from the part as alleged by the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with the cost of opposite parties. 

         4. On the basis of the complaint and version, we framed following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in services as alleged by the complaint?
2. Regarding the relief and costs?

        5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant examined as PW1 and marked no documents.  On the other side 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B1.  PW1 deposed that, he is the consumer of opposite parties and on the basis of the advertisement published by the opposite party he applied for a telephone connection on May 2015 on a belief that, the opposite party might have allowed a new telephone connection without making any delay.  It is deposed that, the opposite party deviated from the assurance given as per Ext.B1.  The PW1 is compelled to remit Rs.500/- as the booking fee for the above said new telephone.  He again deposed that, the opposite parties version with regard to the technical difficulties are false explanation.  PW1 deposed that, the opposite parties allotted the new telephone to the complainant after accepting the notice from the Forum and that itself is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  The DW1 he who examined in this case is the 2^nd opposite party.  He deposed that, the contents of Ext.B1 are the only matters published in the alleged paper publication.  As per Ext.B1 there is no offer for a telephone connection with in one month of its booking and again admitted that, there is an exemption for installation charge as per the Ext.B1.  After the closure of the evidence we heard the complainant and opposite party.

            6. Point Nos. 1 & 2: For the sake of convenience of this case we would like to consider point No.1 and point No.2 together.  When we peruse the complaint and chief examination of PW1 it reveals that, the complainant is a consumer of opposite party.  The next question to be considered is whether the opposite parties published an advertisement as alleged by the complainant.  It is pertinent to see that, either the complainant or the opposite party did not produce any document (Paper publication) to substantiate this issue.  It is to see that, as per the version of opposite party in page No.2 it is stated “the averment in the complaint that, the advertisement published by BSNL for new telephone provision immediate connection was promised is not correct” As per this version we can come to conclusion that, the opposite party has taken a clear stand to the effect that, there was no provision for an immediate connection as alleged by the complainant.  If it be so, the offers and attraction stated in the so called advertisement which was alleged by the complainant has not been proved before us.  The onus of proof is on the part of complainant with regard to this issue. The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party was justified for the delay caused for the allotment of the new telephone connection.  It is true that, the opposite party allotted new telephone connection to the complainant on the next day of the receipt of appearance of notice from this Forum. The complainant argued that, the attitude of the opposite party and the allotment of telephone connection after the receipt of the Forum notice itself has shown the deficiency in service of the opposite party. When we consider this submission we have look into the explanation given by the opposite party with regard to the delay.  When we peruse the pleading of the opposite party through their version in Para 3 the opposite party explained the reason for the delay of the new connection.   As per the version of opposite parties in Para 3 the non availability of drop wire, damages occurred to main 800 pairs of connection and prolonged rain are the reason for the delay.  It is to see that, either the complainant or the opposite party did not file any document to show that, what is the reasonable delay permissible for a new connection?  If an absence of evidence with regard to the question of delay we have to rely the explanation given by the opposite party in this regard.  At the time of cross examination of PW1 he replied “16.07.2015 ൽ മാത്രമാണ് opposite party എനിക്ക് connection നൽകിയത്. എത്രയും പെട്ടെന്ന് തരും എന്ന offer ന് വിരുദ്ധമായിരുന്നു. opposite party യുടെ പ്രവൃത്തി. ഈ offer ൻറെ Advertisement opposite party ഹാജരാക്കണമെന്ന് കാണിച്ച് ഞാൻ അപേക്ഷ നൽകിയിരുന്നു. എന്നാൽ ടി  Advertisement ന് പകരം opposite party ഹാജരാക്കിയത് അവരുടെ  Department തലത്തിലുള്ള ഒരു  Circular മാത്രമാണ്. പരസ്യം opposite party  കേസ് ദുർബലമാക്കാൻ മനപൂർവ്വം ഹാജരാക്കിയതാണ്". We do admit that, the complainant filed an IA No. 118/2015 for the production of said advertisement.  Even if that IA was allowed by the Forum the opposite party failed to comply the order in time.  But at the same time when DW1 was examined, through him, the opposite party produced Ext.B1.  When the complainant cross examined the DW1 he who answered “Ext.B1 ൽ താങ്കള്ക്ക് ടി document കിട്ടിയതായിട്ട് എന്തെങ്കിലും  endorsement ഉണ്ടോ?  (A) ഇല്ല. Ext.B1 issue ചെയ്തിരിക്കുന്നത്   Asst. General Manager, BSNL Head Quarters, New Delhi dated 17/04/2015 ആണ്. (Q) Ext.B1 public ൽ പ്രസിദ്ധീകരിച്ച രേഖയാണോ? (A) അല്ല. (Q) I.A 118/15 ൽ complainant ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ട രേഖ opposite party പത്രങ്ങള്ക്ക് നൽകിയിരുന്ന പരസ്യങ്ങളുടെ copy സൂക്ഷിച്ച file അല്ലേ? (A)  അതെ. അങ്ങനെയൊരു  file ഹാജരാക്കിയിട്ടില്ല. (Q) അങ്ങനെയൊരു file ഹാജരാക്കാൻ സാധിക്കില്ല എന്നൊരു affidavit ഉം നിങ്ങള് ഹാജരാക്കിയിരുന്നുവോ ? (A) ഇല്ല”. We do admit that, the opposite party failed to comply the order in I.A 118/2015 or filed an affidavit to that effect.  The complainant vehemently argued that this is a serious fault on the part of the opposite party and opposite party is answerable in this aspect.  But at the same time it is to see that, when this DW1 was examined by this Forum through him the circular Ext.B1 was marked.  When we examine the Ext.B1 it is clear that the heading of the Ext.B1 is, “The introduction of promotional scheme to waive off installation charges for new Landline, new BB and Combo connection in Kerala Circle only reg.”.  In the said Ext.B1 it is stated “The proposal has been examined in this office and the Competent Authority has decided to launch a promotional scheme for a period of 30 days to waive off installation charges for the new landline, new Broadband & Combo connections of the eve of VISHU festival in Kerala Telecom Circle” When a clear  reading of Ext.B1 it also reveals that, the Ext.B1 shall be applicable with immediate effect for a period of 30 days on promotion basis in Kerala Circle only and it also shows that, “all other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged” The authentication of Ext.B1 has to be admitted because it is issued by BSNL and more over it is attested as true copy by the Sub Divisional Engineer (Phones, Ranni BSNL). As we discussed earlier, that the alleged advertisement which giving offers are not before the Forum.  But at the same time Ext.B1 is produced before the Forum and it is marked as Ext.B1 and it can be considered as a cogent and conclusive evidence of new offers of BSNL for one month which was published on 17.04.2015.  On the basis of Ext.B1 it is brought out to our notice to the effect that, the opposite party waived the installation charges for new land line application within the stipulated time limit of this circular.  Hence we can arrive a conclusion that, the complainant is eligible for a free installation charge of Rs.500/-.  It is also come out in evidence that, the complainant remitted Rs.500/- as the new connection charge as per his complaint and as per his deposition in chief examination.  We would like to treat this amount as an installation charge for this new connection.  Anyway, the opposite party is liable to return the installation charge to the complainant.  It is to see that, the first prayer of the complainant is already executed by the opposite party and now that prayers has come infructuous. Regarding the request for the compensation and cost - considering the nature and circumstances of the case we find that, it need not have to be allowed.  In the light of the evidence adduced by both side in this case we find that, this complaint can be allowed in part.  Hence point No.1 and 2 found accordingly. 

                   7.  In the result, we passed the following orders:

1. The opposite party is directed to return the installation amount Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of the amount within one month of the receipt of this order.
2. No order for cost and compensation.

     Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of February, 2016.

                                                                                  (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                         (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)               :      (Sd/-)

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

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Jacob Stephen

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:  Nil.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: 

DW1  :  Jijo C. Abraham

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: 

B1  :  Photocopy of the Circular dated 17.04.2015. 

                                                                                              (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Jacob Stephen, Kavumkal, Nellickamon. P.O.,

                    Angadi, Ranny – 689 674.                                            

              (2) General Manager, BSNL, Telephone Bhavan,

          Thiruvalla – 689 101.

              (3)  The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Ranny.

            (4)  The Stock File.