BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.453 of 2014
Date of institution: 03.07.2014
Date of Decision: 17.03.2015
Suneeta Sharma d/o Late Sukhdev Sharma, resident of H.No.4571-C, Sector 70, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Plot No.2, Sector 34-A, Punjab Telecom Circle, Chandigarh.
2. G.M. Telecom, BSNL, Telephone Exchange Building, Sector 34-A Chandigarh.
3. BSNL, Phase-4, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. Sonia Bansal, Member.
Present: Complainant in person with cl. Shri Kulwinder Singh,
Shri Manish Marhwal, Commercial Officer of OP No.3
OP Nos.1 and 2 ex-parte.
(MRS. MADHU P. SINGH, PRESIDENT)
ORDER
The case of the complainant is that her brother Anuresh Sharma got installed landline connection No.2216724 at the residence. After migration of brother of the complainant to Pune, he applied on 29.08.2013 to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) for the transfer of aforesaid telephone connection to the name of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant had been visiting the office of the OPs but no action has been taken for transfer of the telephone connection. The complainant needs the telephone connection because of her ailing mother. The complainant sought information from the OPs through RTI Act, 2005 on 21.02.2014 but the OPs had taken no action. When the complainant went to OP No.3 to know about the transfer of telephone connection, Mr. Rajesh an official of OP No.3 misbehaved with the complainant.
Thus the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to transfer the aforesaid telephone connection in the name of the complainant; to pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. OP No.3 in the written statement has admitted that the telephone connection No.2216724 was installed in the name of brother of the complainant. OP No.3 received letter dated 12.12.2013 from the complainant for transfer of this connection in her name. As the connection was on the name of Anuresh Sharma, OP No.3 asked her to submit the required documents for transfer of the connection but no request/documents have been received from Mr. Anuresh Sharma in whose name the telephone connection was installed. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3.
3. None appeared for OP Nos.1 and 2 despite service and presuming their absence as willful, OP Nos.1 and 2 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.12.2014.
4. Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavit Ex.CW1/1 and copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-6.
5. Evidence of OP No.3 consists of affidavit of Manish Marhwal, Commercial Officer Ex.OP-1/3.
6. In view of decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi, 2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another, 2008 (I) CLT 566, OP Nos.1 and 2 were given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant. However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence of the complainant.
7. We have heard Shri Kulwindr Singh, counsel for the complainant and Shri Manish Marhwal, Commercial Officer of OP No.3 and gone through the written arguments filed by them.
8. Undoubtedly the complainant has approached the OPs on 29.08.2013 for transfer of the telephone connection. As per records the telephone connection is in the name of complainant’s brother Shri Anuresh Sharma, which the complainant wants to get it transferred in her name vide application dated 07.12.2013 duly received and acknowledged in the office of OP No.1 and further received by OP No.3 on 12.12.2013. The complainant has placed on record the telephone usage bill Ex.C-1 and C-2 to show the payment of the respective bills by her. The complainant’s grievance is that telephone connection has not been transferred to her name by the OPs and that is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has even sought information from the OPs under RTI Act.
9. As per the OPs the said information sought pertains to subscriber of the telephone number in question i.e. Shri Anuresh Sharma. Therefore, before disclosing the information, a notice was issued to Shri Anuresh Sharma which remained un-replied. As per rules telephone connection from one person to another can be transferred only with the consent of the original subscriber. Therefore, the OPs vide letter dated 23.12.2013 informed the subscriber to the telephone connection No.2216724 Shri Anuresh Sharma on his last recorded address i.e. House No.4571/C, MIG Super Sector 70, SAS Nagar asking him to submit the required documents for transferring the name i.e. customer in whose name the original telephone was installed. However, no request or correspondence has been received from the said customer i.e. Anuresh Sharma. Hence, no further action could be taken by the OPs in this regard. Therefore, due to non supply of requisite documents/information from the original landline telephone subscriber Shri Anuresh Sharma, the OPs have not indulged into any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
10. We have perused the complete record and found the contention and documents supported thereof by the OPs are valid to deny the deficiency in service. The letter dated 23.12.2013 attached with the affidavit Ex.OP-3/1 is duly served to the addressee i.e. Shri Anuresh Sharma as during the course of arguments OP No.3 has produced the photocopy of the despatch register showing despatch and delivery of said letter dated 23.12.2013 by registered post. The extract of the despatch register maintained by the OPs in the normal course of business has been produced and was taken on record. Further we have perused the relevant rules of transfer of telephone connection by the transferor to the transferee. The general conditions are that application for transfer must be submitted by both the transferor and the transferee except in case of death of hirer when it will be signed by the transferee only.
11. In the present case as per the complainant her brother the subscriber of the original telephone connection is alive and she has sought transfer of the connection in her name upon the transfer of her brother from Mohali to Pune. Therefore, the general condition i.e. the application to be submitted duly signed by both the transferor and the transferee is applicable in her case whereas record shows that the complainant has submitted the transfer application in her own capacity as a transferee and duly not signed by the transferor. Therefore, the OPs were well within their right to raise the objection of having the application duly signed by the transferor before taking further action. Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Rather the OPs have given due opportunity to the transferor to complete the formalities as per rules. The onus was on the transferor/transferee i.e. the complainant in the present case to expedite the completion of formalities and documentation. The records show otherwise.
12. Therefore, the complaint being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the OPs with complete documentation and formalities as per rules to get the telephone connection transferred, if so desired. Certified copies of orders be sent to the parties free of costs and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
March 17, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. Sonia Bansal)
Member
