DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 26^th day of June, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.131/2008

V.D.Venugopal,

(Panchayat Member, Thenkara),

Vattodiyil House,

Thenkara(P.O),

Mannarkkad,

Palakkad. - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

The Accounts Officer,

Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Mannarkkad,

Palakkad. - Opposite party

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

In short the case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant is the subscriber of the opposite party with telephone No.04924 226999. Complainant defaulted in making payment in respect of his telephone bill issued on 7/10/2008 for which the due date for payment for not disconnecting the telephone was on 30/10/2008. Complainant made the payment on 20/11/2008. On the same day opposite party disconnected the telephone connection. Even though amount was paid on 20/11/2008, connection was restored only after a period of 9 days. According to the complainant, the act of opposite party amounts to gross deficiency of service.

2. Opposite party filed version contending the following. That the complainant is a habitual defaulter in the payment of telephone bills. BSNL reserves the right to disconnect the service on any day after the pay by date if the bill is not paid as per the provisions contained in Rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules. Hence the connection

was disconnected on 20/11/2008 for non payment of the bill. Further the details of payment of the bill for the purpose of reconnection was not made known to the opposite party. Complainant has not intimated the same inspite of specific instructions given in the reverse side of the telephone bill to contact Accounts Officer (Telephone Revenue), office of the General Manager Telecom, BSNL, Palakkad in case of any grievance regarding billing disputes or disconnection/reconnection etc. Rent rebate of Rs.25/- for non working period from 20/11/2008 to 27/11/2008 is already allowed to the complainant and adjusted in bill dt.7/12/2008. So there is no deliberate delay or deficiency of service on the part of opposite party.

3. Both parties filed their respective affidavit. Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? and

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

5. Issues 1 & 2: The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party has caused a delay of 9 days in reinstating the telephone connection of the complainant even though dues was paid on 20/11/2008. Opposite party also admits the fact that reconnection was effected on 28/11/2008. According to opposite party the fact of payment of the due amount was not intimated to the opposite party.

6. We have carefully gone through the evidence on record. Admittedly there is delay of 9 days in providing reconnection. Complainant has stated that he has enquired with the BSNL authorities about reconnection. No document was produced by the complainant to show that after payment of the dues, he has requested the BSNL authorities to reinstate the disconnected telephone connection. Opposite party has also raised a specific contention that the fact of payment was not made known to the opposite party.

7. In view of the above discussions, we are not in a position to attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the absence of any specific request for reinstating connection by the complainant.

8. In the result complaint dismissed.

9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of June, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Telephone Bill No.86142680 dt.07/12/08

Ext.B2 – Details of the late payments made by the complainant from 7.1.05 to 7.8.08