Kerala

StateCommission

199/2004

General Manager - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.M.Abraham - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.Prakash

27 Nov 2007

ORDER


.
CDRC, Sisuvihar Lane, Sasthamangalam.P.O, Trivandrum-10
Appeal(A) No. 199/2004

General Manager
Accounts Officer (TR)
Junior Telecom Officer		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

N.M.Abraham 		...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


For the Appellant :


For the Respondent :




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM


 

Appeal No.199/04

Judgment Dated: 27.11.2007


 

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER


 

1.General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigom Ltd.,

Kottayam.

2. Accounts Officer(TR),

C/o General Manager, :APPELLANTS

Bharat Sanchar Nigom Ltd.,

Kottayam.


 

3. Junior Telecom Officer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigom Ltd.,

Vakathanam, Kottayam.

(By Adv.G.S.Prakash)

Vs.

N.M.Abraham,

Nankulathu Pottasseril, : RESPONDENT

Pongathanam.P.O.,

Vakathanam, Kottayam.


 

JUDGMENT


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU

The appellants/the respondents/BSNL who are under orders to pay Rs.1000/-as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost to the complainant and also ordered to give rent rebate for one month which according to the appellant is already given. The case of the complainant is that his telephone became dead from 23.7.02 and that he complained on the same day and also on next 2 days, but no action was taken. The complainant also filed written complaint subsequently. Ultimately the lawyers notice was issued. The telephone became alive only on 9.8.02.ie after 17 days. Subsequently also the telephone was getting disconnected intermittently. It is also contended that two other telephones is ie. 464269 and 464116 served by a common cable with that of the complainant were working. Complaint had claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.200 per day for the 17 days and also Rs.50/- per day for the intermittent failure of connection till the date of filing the petition.

2. The contention of the respondent/appellant was that the disruption was occurred on account of cable fault. It is mentioned that the telephone cable of the complainant is drawn under Sabari Pallom 220 KV line for about 1.5 KMs and it is often affected by lightening and that they had to replace the cable for a length of 200 meters and that fault repaired subsequently. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony A1 to A4, ext.B1 and C1 commission report of the Advocate commissioner.

3. On specific points the Advocate commissioner was directed to report. Commissioner has reported only at 2 points at a width of 10 meters the underground cable passes under the 220 KV line. It is also mentioned that the 3 telephones including that of that complainant were provided though the common over head cable and that the other telephones had no fault inorder to report of the commissioner the appellants have not produced any evidence that other two telephones were also similarly not working .The reason for the long delay to repair was not satisfactorily explained except mentioning that so much of time was taken to repair or replace. Forum below has rightly pointed out that the telephone connection cannot be treated as a luxury but a requirement for everyday life. Evidently there is deficiency in service and the amount of compensation ordered is only for Rs.1000/- We find no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.


 


 

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT


 


 

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER