O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting relief from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a BSNL subscriber of opposite parties having telephone No.2737581, Mepral, Thiruvalla.  According to him, for the last so many months there was no incoming call bell was present in his telephone and even the broad band connection was also not functioning properly.  The complainant informed this defect to the opposite parties office at Thiruvalla and Chathankery.  But no proper redressal steps has been taken by the opposite parties.  On October 2015, the complainant hand over the defective modem to the opposite party but they failed either to rectify the defect nor given another modem.  He again contended that on 24.11.2015 he remitted the BSNL bill amount of November to Mepral Post Office but on 07.12.2015 his telephone connection was disconnected by the opposite parties.  It is again contended that on 06.12.2015 the opposite party served another bill for the month of November, which also includes the remitted amount dated 24.11.2015.  According to him, the disconnection of the land phone is severally affected his telephone usage and net connection.  It is again stated that the opposite parties subsequently informed him the mistake they committed by the non-calculation of the bill amount remitted on 24.11.2015 at Mepral Post Office.  The opposite parties reinstall the telephone connection and at present the land phone and the modem is functioning smoothly.  The complainant filed this case against the opposite parties for the deficiency in service and demanded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for further steps against them. 

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to opposite parties 1 and 2.  The opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their separate version as follows:  According to the 1^st opposite party the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  1^st opposite party stated that the allegation of the disconnection dated 06.12.2015 of the land line No.0469-2737581 was absolutely false.  The remittance of the bill amount at Mepral Post Office was reported to this opposite party on belated date due to technical reasons. The arrear of November bill of 2015 was considered at the time of payment of the December bill and the said amount was adjusted and only the bill amount of December was collected from the complainant.    According to him, there is no deficiency in service on his part and the complainant has not eligible to get any compensation as claimed. 

                   4. The version of the 2^nd opposite party is also briefly stated here:  According to him, the complainant remitted the land phone bill dated 06.11.2015 for an amount of Rs.750/- at Mepral Post Office on 24.11.2015.  It is contended, while running the e-payment communication which enables the transmission of details of telephone revenue collection, Sub Postmaster, Mepral noticed some error in that transaction and the Divisional Office had taken immediate action to rectify the error.  After the rectification the e-payment message was done only on 18.11.2015.  According to him, there is no negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party the defect stated above are happened only on technical ground and the same was rectified in time.  The 2^nd opposite party also prayed to dismiss the case with cost.

                   5. We peruse the complaint, versions and records before us we framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Regarding cost and relief?

         6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A3.  Ext.A1 is the bill dated 06.11.2015 for Rs.783.15 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A2 is the bill dated 06.12.2015 for Rs.800.86 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the bill dated 06.01.2016 for Rs.787.19 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. On the other side, the opposite party has not adduced any evidence on their part.  When PW1 examined before this Forum he deposed that due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties his telephone connection was disconnected and even after so many complaints the opposite parties failed to rectify the complaint in the telephone receiver and modem.  The act and approach of the opposite parties are caused much inconvenience to him in telephone and e-mail usage and also caused mental hardship.  At the time of cross-examination of PW1, he deposed that at present his telephone and modem is working properly and there is no further relief is claimed against the opposite parties.  He further deposed that hereafter he is expecting a good and fair approach from the opposite parties and the opposite parties are ought to consider it if, any grievances arised on his part.  After closure of evidence, we heard both sides.  The complainant submitted that he need not want any further relief from the opposite parties.  He submitted that he is so satisfied if this Forum has given a proper direction to the opposite parties with regard to the deficiency committed by the opposite parties through an order.

            7. Point Nos.1 to 3:- Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we would like to consider Point No.1 to 3 together.  Though the opposite parties raised a contention to the effect that the case is not maintainable before this Forum at the time of final hearing the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party in this case not seriously raised that issue hence we find Point No.1 in favour of the complainant.  In the light of the answer of PW1 in cross-examination, there is no need to examine the details of deficiency in service in this case.  On the basis of the evidence before us, it is clear that the complaint is a prompt consumer of the opposite parties and he is regularly paying the monthly bill to the concerned.  If it be so, it is the duty of the opposite party to serve the said customer properly and without having any complaint.  The opposite party 1 and the learned counsel of opposite party 2 are also agree to dispose the matter on the basis of the submission raised by the complainant in this case.  The complainant, without any ambiguity submitted before this Forum, that a direction for a proper and reasonable consumer service from the opposite parties are needed to the complainant hereafter.  As per the evidence adduced by PW1 the prompt remittance of Ext.A1 bill is proved and 2^nd opposite party’s liability to the complainant is also revealed.  Hence Point No.1 to 3 found accordingly.    

8. In the light of the above finding, we pass the following orders:

          (1) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to give proper

               and reasonable consumer service to the complainant as and  

               when it is required by  the complainant.

          (2) A cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is allowed to 

              the complainant from opposite party 2 with 10% interest from 

              the date of order onwards.

3. No order for 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 June, 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  :  Joseph Varghese

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Bill dated 06.11.2015 for Rs.783.15 issued by the opposite party

        to the complainant. 

A2 :  Bill dated 06.12.2015 for Rs.800.86 issued by the opposite party

        to the complainant.

A3 :  Photocopy of the bill dated 06.01.2016 for Rs.787.19 issued by the 

        opposite party to the complainant.

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

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

                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Joseph Varghese, Palamuttathu Veedu,

                    Karackal, Peringara, Thiruvalla.                                                                     

(2)  The General Manager, BSNL, Kurisukavala,

           Thiruvalla.

     (3)  The Postmaster, Mepral Post Office, Peringara Village,

                    Thiruvalla Taluk.

              (4)  The Stock File.