1. JIMMY KORAH 2. K.Anirudhan 3. Smt;Shajitha Beevi
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
SRI. K.ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Smt. K.Sathiamma has filed this complaint before this Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The brief facts of the case is that, a Telephone connection bearing number 2430514 was in the name of her daughter Smt. Sheeja Devi up to March 2005. On 2nd March 2005, she expired. After the death of Smt. Sheeja Devi, her husband Sri. Raju has taken steps to transfer the said Telephone connection in his name. Now he is enjoying the connection. Complainant has requested to issue an order to transfer the connection in her name and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance before this Forum. Second and third opposite parties have filed version and produced documents. In the version, the opposite parties 2nd and 3rd have stated that an application for new Telephone connection was received from Smt. Sheeja devi on 28-05-2007 by deposite of Rs. 1,000/- towards advance deposit. Smt. Sheeja Devi paid the deposite on 21-06-1997 and new Telephone connection was provided to her on 17-10-2000. It is stated that consequence on the death of the subscriber Smt. Sheeja Devi on 02-03-2005, her husband Sri. S.Raju had applied to the opposite parties to transfer legally the said Telephone connection owned by his wife to his name after producing all the essential documents in evidence. As such, the opposite parties was legally transferred the said connection to Sri. Raju on 04-06-2005 and as per the request of the 1st opposite party Sri. Raju, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties had shifted the connection to his residential building bearing No. 516/II on 20-07-2005. It is stated that the said Telephone is now owned and subscribed by Sri. Raju and he is paying the subscription amount. It is further stated that the complainant is not the subscriber and she is not a consumer as defined under this Act, and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 3. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2) Compensation and costs. 4. Issues 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant, she has produced Exts. A1 to A4 documents in evidence, marked. Ext. A1 is the Telephone bill dated 11-10-2002 issued by the opposite party in favour of Smt. Sheeja Devi, the daughter of the complainant. Ext. A2 is the birth Register of Smt. Sheej Devi. Ext. A3 is the statement of wedding of the 1st opposite party and Ext. A4 is the death certificate of Smt. Seeja Devi. 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have produced Exts. B1 to B8 documents. Ext. B1 is the application of the complainant to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties to transfer the phone. Ext. B2 is the application of the 1st opposite party to transfer the Telephone connection in his name. Ext. B3 is the letter to the 1st opposite party from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties requesting to produce the documents for transfer. Ext. B4 is the death certificate of Smt. Sheeja Devi. Ext. B5 is the application for transfer of the connection by the 1st opposite party. Ext. B6 is the copy of the identity card of the 1st opposite party. On a perusal of the above said documents, it can be seen that after the death of Smt. Sheeja Devi the original subscriber, her husband Sri. Raju, the 1st opposite party, had applied the 2nd and 3rd opposite party to transfer the connection in his name, with all, the relevant documents. As such, after considering the genuineness of the documents, the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties have transferred the said connection to the 1st opposite party and he is remitting the subscription amount relating to the said connection. The complainant has no locus standi to question the transfer of the said connection to the husband of the deceased subscriber. In this connection, the contentions raised by the complainant regarding the transfer of connection will not be sustained since she is not a consumer and that she is not entitled to get any relief. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 2 and 3. Hence the issues are found in favour of the opposite parties. So we are of the view that the complaint is to be dismissed since it has no merit. Complaint dismissed. No orders as to costs. Complaint dismissed. Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 28th day of July, 2008. Sd/- Sri. K.Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N.Shajitha Beevi APPENDIX Evidence of the Complainant:- Ext. A1 11-10-2002 Telephone Bill Ext. A2 26-07-1983 Photocopy of Birth certificate of Sheeja Devi Ext. A3 09-12-2005 Photocopy of statement of wedding Ext. A4 19-06-2006 Photocopy of Death Certificate Evidence of the Opposite parties:- Ext. B1 - Application of the complainant to transfer the phone Ext. B2 - Application of 1st opposite party to transfer the phone connection Ext. B3 - Letter to the 1st opposite party from 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. Ext. B4 - Death Certificate of Smt. Sheeja Devi Ext. B5 - Application for transfer the connection by the 1st opposite party Ext. B6 - Copy of the identity card of the 1st opposite party Ext. B7 18-04-2005 Certificate issued by the Kandalloor Village Officer Ext. B8 - Application for shifting of Telephone Connection // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite parties/SF Typed by: Sh/- Compd by:
