KERALASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.429/04
JUDGMENT DATED :27/6/08
PRESENT :-
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. Junior Engineer,
BSNL. Pattanakad Exchange,
Cherthala.
: APPELLANTS
2. Superintendent, BSNL,
Telecom District, Alappuzha.
(By Adv.G.S.Prakash)
Vs
Smt.Jessymol Radhakrishnan,
W/o Radhakrishnan, Ayyankattu House, : RESPONDENT
Pattanakad.P.O. Cherthala.
(By Adv.V.M.Arunkumar)
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 29/3/2004 in OP.No.108/2003 of CDRF, Alappuzha wherein and whereby the appellants are under orders to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.6,500/- with interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of the order along with cost of Rs.300/-. The appellants are also under directions to give reconnection to the complainant within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order and to give rent rebate for the disconnection period.
2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that she was conducting a bookstall in the building No.619 of Ward 6 of Pattanakad Panchayat. The telephone No. 2593237 to the bookstall was disconnected from 1/4/2003 without any reason though she was remitting all the amounts in time through SBT, Pattanakad. The complainant’s further case is that in spite of her demands for reconnection, the same was not done by the opposite parties and alleging deficiency in service the complaint was filed before the Forum praying for directions to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the business loss, Rs.20,000/- for mental pain and agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
3. Resisting the complaint, the opposite parties filed version inter alia contending that original connection to the complainant was to be given in the address “Ayyancattu, PP-7/739, Pattanakkadu” and it was at her request that the connection was given on 31/7/02 to the bookstall on the representation of the complainant that the bookstall was owned by her and her husband. The opposite parties further submitted before the Forum that after the installation they came to know that the bookstall was run by one Rajesh and that the complainant was not the owner of the building. The complainant had unauthorizedly obtained the connection in the bookstall on the misrepresentation that it was owned by her and consequently a disconnection notice was given and subsequently the same was evidently disconnected on 1/4/2003 as per the order of the General Manager, Telecom, Alappuzha. The opposite parties pleaded that there was no deficiency in service and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. The evidence consisted of the testimony of PW1 to PW3 and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant. RW1 to RW4 were examined on side of the opposite parties and documents B1 to B8 were marked.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that it was without any appreciation of the contentions raised and documents produced before the Forum that the order was passed fastening the liability of payment of Rs.6,500/- with cost and further directions of restore connection and give rent rebate. It is his very case that the complainant/respondent had misrepresented and misguided the opposite parties/appellants for getting connection in the bookstall representing that the bookstall was owned by her and her husband. He invited our attention to Ext.B6 which would show that the bookstall was owned by one Mr. Rajesh and hence the complainant had obtained the connection in that bookstall fraudulently. The learned counsel also argued that the lower Forum ought to have found that the complainant had obtained the connection unauthorizedly by giving false information and as such the complaint ought to have been dismissed with cost.
6. We find force in the arguments of the learned counsel regarding the argument that the complainant had obtained the connection to the bookstall furnishing false information. Ext.B6 is the agreement entered into by the husband of the complainant and Mr.Rajesh wherein it can be seen that the shop building is owned by the 2nd party Mr.Rajesh and the complainant or her husband had no ownership in the said building. In such a situation it can be found that the opposite party had acted only legally in disconnecting the telephone by given legal notice. It is also to be noted that the disconnection was effected after 3 months from the date of notice and the complainant had never made any clarification regarding her title over the bookstall or had raised any contentions as to her ownership. In such a situation we find no irregularity or illegality in the action of the opposite parties in disconnecting the telephone. The Forum has gone wrong in directing the opposite parties to give reconnection and rent rebate apart from the payments of Rs.6,500/- with interest and cost.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 29/3/2004 in OP.No.108/03 of CDRF , Alappuzha thereby dismissing the complaint. In the nature and circumstance of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
M.V.VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
PK.
