IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 22nd day of September 2009 CC/112/2006 C.K.Thomas, S/o.Kuruvila, Chethimattathil House, Complainant Kundumangode, P.O.Keezhpally 670 704 (Rep. by Adv.K.Gopakumar) 1. Divisional Manger, Bharath Sanjar Nigam Ltd, Kannur 2.Asst.Engineer, Aralam Telephone Exchange, Opposite parties Valayankode P.O, Velimanam. 3.Divisional Engineer, Telecom, BSNL, Matannur, P.O.Mattannur. O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to transfer the telephone connection from the old house to the new house of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that he had been resided within the jurisdiction of Bheemanadi, telephone exchange, Kasaragod and the consumer of the telephone having No.2245589. But now he has shifted his residence to a new house which is within the jurisdiction of Valayankode telephone exchange. So he had applied to the Neelaswaram exchange for shifting before 15.2.05. But the opposite parties told the complainant that there is no cable available and hence they are ready to give connection with a wireless phone. But there was no electricity connection in the house of the complainant and hence he denied it. But in the meanwhile the opposite party had given land phone connection to two others. So the complainant contacted the opposite party several time and he had complained the same to the Divisional Manger but no action was taken. So the complainant has suffered so much of mental agony as well as financial loss. Hence this complaint. Upon receiving the notices from the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The opposite parties admits that the complainant is a subscriber of telephone No.2245589 under Beemanadi exchange in Kasaragod District and also admits that the complainant had applied for shifting to A.P.VIII/718 Aralam telephone exchange. The Divisional Engineer, Nileswar has passed order for shifting the telephone and sent to the Divisional Engineer, Mattannur, under whom the new premises is situated. But the concerned officer was not able to affect the transfer due to lack of cable pair in the premises. Hence the possibility of providing the connection through wireless telephone was explored and it was found that sufficient WLL signal is available in the premises and the complainant has submitted his option to accept WLL connection in the prescribed form and hence telephone Number Aralam 2500120 was created for providing WLL connection. But the complainant refused to avail the connection on the ground that his house is not electrified. The fact that electrification of the house is not necessary for WLL connection and that even a car battery or solar panel can serve the purpose of electricity was made known to the complainant and still he was reluctant to accept the WLL connection and hence the created phone number was closed. More over, the complainant was informed by the sub Divisional Engineer, Nileswar that his telephone cannot be shifted to the new location on wire line and requested to intimate whether his telephone is to be closed for safe custody for which the complainant has not responded. They denied the allegation of the complainant that two land line connections were given in the premises of his residence. No new connection were provided from the distribution point box from which the complainant is liable to get connection, since its capacity is already full. More over there is no willful delay in shifting the telephone. For providing land line connection to the complainant trenching and cable lying is to be done through Madathil-Keezhpally PWD road and the PWD authorities have not given permission for the trenching along the road for the last two years due to cases between PWD and the contractor. The allegation that the telephone connection was given to Tharaniyil Ravi, a local shift was given to Sri.T.N.Raveendran, Kundumangod on 30.9.05 by jumping over the priority is not correct. The application was received on 30.8.05. The shift was provided from one end of the Athikkal – Mangod route to the middle of the same route and the same cable pair was used for providing shift. No fresh cable pair was utilized for providing this shift of telephone. As regards the allegation of phone number 2455293 is in the name of one Devassiya and the request for shift was received on 11.11.05. The shift was requested to the house were telephone No.2455980 of Thomas M Mattamunda is working. . The above said Thomas has shifted his connection to Edoor Exchange dt.29.10.05 and the shift of 2455293 was provided to Devassia to the same house on 21.11.05. So both shifts were given using the working cable pairs and that during this period, shift case of Sri.C.K.Thomas was not pending with Aralam telephone exchange as his application was returned to SDE Nileswar on 2.8.08 for cancellation. So the BSNL is not liable to pay compensation and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts.B1 to B6. Issue Nos. 1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that opposite parties have given shift connection to two others by overcoming the priority of the complainant. According to the complainant he had shifted his residence from the jurisdiction of Beemanadi telephone exchange to Valayankode telephone exchange. He had applied for shifting the telephone having numebr2245589 to his new house before 15.2.05. But the opposite parties were not effected shifting even though it was sanctioned by saying that there was no spare cable and instead of giving transfer of land line, the opposite party compelled the complainant to take WLL connection , but the house of the complainant is not electrified and the complainant refused since the WLL connection requires current. But the opposite party admits that they had given shifting to one Thuraniyil Ravi on 30.9.05 and to one Devassia on 21.11.05. But the DW1 deposed that “ ]cm-Xn-¡m-c-sâ-Xm-Wv-B-Z-yT \ÂIn-b-Xv. ]n¶o-SmWv chn At]£ \ÂIn-b-Xp.-[-c-Wn-bn chn-bp-sS-hoSv ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ hoSvI-gnªv BWv. AhnsS shift sImSp-¯n-«pv . The opposite party admits in the version that the application of T.N.Raveendran was received on 30.8.05 and shifting was effected on 30.9.05. Further the opposite parties admit that the application of Devassia for shifting was received on 11.11.05 and shifting was effected on 21.11.05. The DW1 deposed that tZh-k-y F¶-hÀ¡v connection sImSp-¯n-cp¶p shift \mWv. ]cm-Xn-¡m-c\p tij-ap-ff At]-£-bm-Wv. tZh-k-y-bpsS hoSv ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ hoSv Ignª tij-amWv “So from this it is clear that the opposite parties had given connection to the above said Ravendran and Devassiya by overcoming the priority of the complainant. But the opposite party contended that at the time of giving the above connection, the application of complainant is not pending since it was returned to Sub Divisional Engineer, Nilelswar. But the opposite party has not produced any document to show that the application was already cancelled. So the contention of the opposite parties cannot be accepted. The another contention of the opposite parties is that there was no cable pair for effecting shift to the complainant. But the DW1 deposed that “site kT-_-Ôn¨v location plan Dv.-A-Xp-t\m-¡n-bm cable position a\-Ên-em-Ip-T. Cable position ImWn¡p¶Xv laid cable ImWn-¡p-¶-XmWv. 2005  sF{X free cable Dm-bn-cp¶p F¶p recordIÄ kq£n-¡p-¶p-v. “But the opposite party has not produced any documents to show that there was no cable pair at that time. So the above defence also cannot be taken into consideration. The another contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant is not accepted the WLL connection which was offered by the opposite parties. But the opposite parties themselves admit that it needs 12 voltage battery or electric connection for functioning. So the complainant refused to accept the same. So from the available evidence on record shows that there is some deficiency on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate. Hence opposite parties are liable to give land phone connection to the complainant and Rs.2000/- towards cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled to receive the same. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to give telephone connection to the complainant along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order under the provisions of Consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member Appendix Exhibits for the complainant: Nil Exhibits for the opposite parties: B1.Termsand conditions for provisioning affixed line telephone on Will B2.Copy of the letter dt.1.9.05 sent to complainant B3.Copy of the letter dt.15.5.06 sent by OP to Adv.Sabu Varghese B4.Copy of the letter dt.18.5.06 sent to complainant B5.Copy of the letter dt.30.4.06 sent to complainant B6.Copy of the master record view of Aralam Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Jaison Thomas Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.V.V.Gopalan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K | | 
