KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.782/05 JUDGMENT DATED: 23/7/08 PRESENT:- JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER The Sub Divisional Officer, B.S.N.L., : APPELLANT Oonnukallu, Kothamangalam. (By Adv.K.R.Haridas) Vs 1. Pradeep V.R. Vadayadiyil House, Adimali P.O., Mannamkandam, Idukki District. : RESPONDENTS 2. Job M.J., Manimuriyil House, Thattekkanni P.O., Karimanala Kara, Iddukki. (By Adv.Babu P. Pothencode) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER This appeal is preferred against the order dated 2/8/05 in OP No 39/05 of CDRF, Idukki wherein the opposite parties are under orders to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- within one month from the date of order failing which the amount would carry 12% interest from the date of default. 2. The case of the complainant before the Forum was that he went to the 1st opposite party’s booth for contacting his friend over the telephone installed in the booth. It is his case that though he did not get the dialed number he was served with a bill for Rs.3.50 and the 1st opposite party insisted for the payment. It is his further case that the 1st opposite party had committed deficiency of service and the complaint was filed praying for directions to pay compensation by the opposite party. 3. The 1st opposite party filed a written version wherein it was contended that the BSNL was a necessary party in the case and the 1st opposite party had not committed any mistake in issuing a bill for Rs.3.50 which was liable to be paid by the complainant. It was also contended that the complainant had not paid the bill and inturn he had torn off the bill and in such a circumstance he cannot be treated as a consumer. The 1st opposite party very much insisted for from the impleadment of BSNL/appellant as a necessary party which was admitted by the Forum below. 3. In the objection filed by the present appellant/additional 2nd opposite party it was contended that the complaint was not maintainable against them and Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain telecom disputes. It was also contended that if the complainant did not get the call it might be due to some mistake in the billing machine of the 1st opposite party. It was their further case that the booth was allotted to one Smt. Juliet Job, the daughter of the 1st opposite party and if a complaint was received from the complainant they would have checked the system then and there. However it was submitted that after receipt of notice from the Forum the 2nd opposite party inspected the booth and billing machine wherein no defects were noticed. It was the specific case of the 2nd opposite party that they were not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony the complainant as PW1 and documents P1 to P2 (a). On the side of the opposite parties DW1 to DW3 were examined and documents R1 and R2 were marked. 5. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant who submitted his arguments based on the version and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He vehemently argued that there was no deficiency of service or any other mistakes on the part of the appellant/2nd opposite party and that the complaint itself was not maintainable before the Forum. It is his very case that the Forum below had gone wrong in fastening liability on both the opposite parties since there was no cause of action for the complainant against the 2nd opposite party/appellant for filing a complaint.. It is also argued by him that the cause of action arose between the complainant and the 1st opposite party only and if at all any amount as compensation was awarded by the Forum below that ought to have been against the 1st opposite party only and not against the 2nd opposite party. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on an appreciation of the entire evidence we find that the 2nd opposite party was impleaded unnecessarily. The complainant had approached the 1st opposite party for dialing a particular number and it is seen that the 1st opposite party had collected the amount of Rs.3.50 even though the complainant was not able to get access to his desired number over the telephone. In such a circumstance the Forum ought not have fastened the liability, though on the high side, on the 2nd opposite party also without any supporting material. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 2/8/05 in OPP 39/05 of CDRF, Idukki as against the appellant thereby the appellant/2nd opposite party is exonerated from the liability. However the complainant is set at liberty to proceed against the 1st opposite party for realizing the amount stipulated in the order. In the nature and circumstances of the case there is not order as to cost in the present appeal. S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Pk.
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
