Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/390

THE GENERAL MANAGER BSNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DEVASSIA - Opp.Party(s)

G S PRAKASH

25 Jun 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.390//2015

JUDGMENT DATED : 25.06.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.167/2014 on the file of CDRF, Idukki order dated : 29.12.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. The General Manager,

BSNL, Ernakulam Telecom Ltd,

Ernakulam

 

2. The Sub Divisional Officer,

BSNL, Painavu , Painavu.P.O.Idukki

 

3. The A.E.O,

BSNL, Arakukulam,

Arakkulam.P.O Idukki

 

4. The J.E, BSNL, Kulamavu,

Kulamavu.P.O Idukki

 

(By Adv.Sri.G.S.Prakash)

 

Vs.

RESPONDENT

 

Devassia

S/o.Thomas,

Kavumprayil House,

Muthiyurundayar,

Kulamavu, Idukki

 

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellants are the opposite parties in CC.No.167/2014 in the CDRF, Idukki. The sole respondent who was the complainant before the consumer forum had land line telephone connection from the opposite parties. It is alleged that the land line became functionless and the complainant informed the Kulamavu Telephone Exchange but the opposite parties never took steps to restore the connection till the filing of the complaint. In the meanwhile, the complainant experienced several difficulties.

          2.      In the version filed by the opposite parties the allegations in the complaint are admitted and it is admitted that some delay occurred for rectification of the fault. The excuse pleaded is that high tension line of KSEB passing close to the telephone line broke disrupting the land line.

          3.      The consumer forum recorded the evidence adduced by the parties and after consideration of the circumstances available held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The consumer forum allowed Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The learned counsel for the appellants was heard at the time of admission.

          4.      The appellants have specifically admitted that delay occurred in rectifying the fault in the land line. What exactly is the actual delay is not mentioned. According to the complainant rectification was not done till the filing of the complaint before the forum. This allegation is thus not specifically denied. Snapping of adjacent electricity supply line is no execuse for such a long delay. In short, on the admitted facts the appellants have not shown an arguable case warranting issue of notice to the respondent. Hence the appeal is dismissed inlimine.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

 VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.390//2015

JUDGMENT DTD : 25.06.2015

 

                                                                                                                   Be/