DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.117/2008

Moideenkutty @ Bava,

S/o.Unneenkutty,

Madippurath House,

Kumaranallur Post,

Padinjarangadi, Pattambi,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.P.C.Sivadas & Abdul Jamal)

Vs

1. The Junior Engineer,

BSNL, Padinjarangadi,

Pattambi.

2. The Junior Telecom Officer,

BSNL,

Internal Thrithala,

Palakkad.

3. The Sub Divisional Engineer (Commercial)

BSNL,

Shornur Division, Palakkad.

4. The General Manager,

BSNL,
Palakkad.

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant was the subscriber of telephone No.2681512 having consumer No.4637323. Later he shifted his residence to Kumaranallur. He applied for a telephone connection for the same number on 01/06/07 through the Sub Divisional Engineer (Commercial), BSNL, Ponnani and the official concerned issued a certificate confirming the transfer. Complainant was asked to submit the certificate to 1^st opposite party within 30 days from 12/06/07. On that basis complainant submitted the same on 15/06/07.

The officials of the 4^th opposite party informed the complainant that at present only wireless connection is available and for land line connection he has to wait for some time. Complainant waited for a long period, but no connection was provided. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that opposite parties are providing land line connection in that area and has unnecessarily delayed the connection to the complainant. So opposite parties committed deficiency in service and hence the complaint.

2. Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions:

According to opposite parties, the All India Shift was already given from Padinjarangadi exchange with the No.2276284. The All India Shift when serviced either on land line or WLL do not permit retention of same number in the old exchange. Exchange are identified by exchange code in short distance charging area. Hence subscriber wish to retain the same number in the changed exchange area is technically not possible. Further providing land line/WLL is the prerogative of the service provider based on techno economic reasons. Drawing long length cable and cable laying cost around Rs.40,000/-. Till such time any existing customer return or shift out from the area, cable connection was not feasible. Subscriber refused to take WLL connection. Technology choice is the prerogative of the service provider. The price for service in BSNL is uniform for both land line and WLL, but development cost for land line is expensive. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

3. Both parties filed their respective affidavits. Exts.A1 to A3 marked on the side of complainant.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

5. Issues 1 & 2: The specific case of the complainant is that opposite party caused inordinate delay in providing land line connection to the complainant. Even though the certificate dt.12/06/07 was submitted before the officials concerned on 15/06/07 itself, till the date of filing of the complainant no connection was provided.

6. The contention of opposite parties is mainly based on technical reasons. According to the opposite parties, same number as requested by the complainant cannot be provided for technical reasons. Further complainant refused to accept WLL connection which was offered by the opposite parties instead of land line connection. According to opposite parties till such time any existing customer return or shift out from that area cable connection was not feasible.

7. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record and heard both parties in detail. On verification of records, it can be seen that opposite parties took more than 1 ½ years for providing connection to the complainant. Connection was provided only after the filing of the complaint. Even though many technical reasons are stated by the opposite parties in not providing connection, opposite parties has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions. The stand of the opposite parties that some other person has to return or shift out from that area, is totally unacceptable. There is nothing on record to that there was no underground cables available for giving connection.

8. In view of the above discussions we are of the view that the delay of 1 ½ years in not providing connection to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

9. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part together with Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of July, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Telephone bill issued by opposite parties to the complainant

Ext.A2 – Certificate issued by opposite parties to complainant

Ext.A3 – True copy of customer installation details.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Costs (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings