Date of filing : 18-05-2007<br /> Date of order : 30-07-2007<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD<br /> CC.No.36/2007<br /> Dated this, the 30th day of July 2008.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> Mathew.P.J,<br /> S/o.Joseph Omanaganam,<br /> K.U.P.W. 4/443, Berikkulam.Po, } Complainant<br /> Parappa,Via, Pin: 671 533.<br /> <br /> 1. J.T.O, Bheemanady Exchange, } Opposite parties<br /> Bheemanady BSNL.<br /> 2. Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Nileshwar.<br /> 3. General Manager, BSNL, Kannur.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant Mathew PJ is aggrieved by the non-execution of his demand for land line telephone connection coming under the jurisdiction of the opposite parties namely, JTO, Beemanady Exchange, Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Nileshwar and General Manager, BSNL, Kannur.<br /> 2. The Opposite parties admit that Mathew is an applicant for land line telephone connection with Reg.No.BD1/NOYT/Gen/00948 dtd.14-05-2001 by paying Rs.500/- and he has requested for refund of his amount deposited for telephone connection and accordingly an amount of Rs.780/- has been refunded on 26-03-2008. Opposite party further averrs that on verification giving land line connection to Mathew was not feasible due to lack of cable pair. Hence Wireless Telephone Connection (WLL) connection was offered to Mathew but he refused to accept. They further submits that no connection is distributed over looking his priority from the distribution point from which connection has to be provided to him. Hence according to Opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on their part.<br /> 3. Mathew filed affidavit in support of his claim and Exts. A1 to A7 marked. No oral evidence or documentary evidence is adduced by opposite parties.<br /> 4. The allegation of the opposite parties that Mathew requested for the refund of security deposit and accordingly the same is refunded is not appears to be true particularly when Mathew in his affidavit has asserted that he has not submitted any request for refund of amount he deposited for telephone connection. Further no shred of paper is produced by opposite parties to show that he has requested for refund of amount.<br /> 5. The offer of WLL telephone connection instead of land line connection and inordinate delay in providing connection say about 7 years amounts to restrictive trade practice as envisaged under 2(nnn) of Consumer Protection Act for which opposite parties are liable. No consumer can be compelled to opt a particular mode of connection against his interest and the ultimate choice is left with the consumer.<br /> 6. Hence we find deficiency in service in non-execution of the demand of Mathew PJ for land line telephone connection for about 7 years. That apart the refund of amount advanced without the request of Mathew is also an attempt to avoid provision of land line telephone connection to Mathew.<br /> Therefore we allow the complaint and JTO, Beemanady Exchange is directed to provide land line telephone connection to complainant after collecting the necessary security deposit. JTO, Beemanady exchange, Divisional Engineer, Nileshwar and General Manager, BSNL, Kannur are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.2000/- to Mathew towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance of this order is two months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which on application by Mathew appropriate proceedings will be initiated.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> Exts.<br /> A1. Demand Note.<br /> A2. 25-6-01. Provisional Certificate.<br /> A3. 17-11-06 Notice issued by BSNL, Kannur.<br /> A4. 16-8-07 letter sent by complainant to SDE Nileshwar<br /> A5. 10-01-08 letter sent by G.M. Kannur to complainant.<br /> A6 01-03-08 letter sent by OP to complainant.<br /> A7.26-03-08 cheque amounting Rs.780/- issued by BSNL, Kannur.<br /> Pj/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />