Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

90/2013

B.Krishnaurthy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief General Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

L.Surya Associates

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.04.2013

                                                               Order pronounced on:  11.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 11^th   DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.90/2013

 

 

B.Kirshnamurthy,

Son of late Balaraman,

No.335, Thiruneelakandan Nagar 2^nd Street,

Kavangarai, Puzhal,

Chennai – 600 066.

 

                                                                                               ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Chief General Manager,

BSNL, Chennai Telephone,

No.78, Pursawakkam High Road,

Chennai – 600 010.

 

2.The Deputy General Manager (North – West),

O/o. DGM (North-West)

BSNL, Chennai Telephone,

No.52, E.V.K. Sampath Salai,

(Near Dina Thanthi Office)

Chennai – 600  007.

 

3.The Divisional  Engineer (Madhavaram I Internal),

BSNL, Chennai Telephones,

No.1, E.B.Road,  Sembium,

Madhavaram, Chennai – 600 011.

 

4.The Divisonal Engineer

(Madhavaram II Internal),

No. C-34, Venkataraman Salai,

Periyar Nagar Exchange Buildings,

Chennai – 600 082.

 

5.The Assistant Junior Engineer,

Madhavaram Exchange Office,

BSNL, Chennai Telephones,

No.1, E.B.Road, Sembium,

Madhavaram,

Chennai – 600 011.

 

6.The Assistant Junior Engineer,

Puzhal Exchange Office,

BSNL, Chennai Telephones,

No.5, Dr.Ambedkar Street,

Puzhal, Camp-Puzhal,

Chennai – 600 066.

 

 

	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 19.04.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      :L.Surya Associates, L.Sasi  Renka

                                                               L.Leela Raman,L.Thiyagiya

                                                                  G.V.Bharathi        

 

Counsel for  Opposite parties                   : M/s.Y.Bhuvanesh Kumar &

                                                                 D.Devendran

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1,THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The  Complainant was having BSNL land line and broadband   connection bearing telephone phone No.044-25585194 at his residence No.15 Z /3, Shanthi Nagar, 2^nd street, Madhavaram, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011. The Complainant has shifted his residence in the month of June 2012 from the above said address to No.335, Thiruneelakandan Nagar, 2^nd Street, Kavangarai, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066.The opposite parties  are the processors of shifting and transfer of BSNL land line and broadband connection .   The Complainant submitted the application to the 2^nd Opposite Party to shift the above telephone connection with necessary documents. He had approached customer care at Madhavaram and Redhills for shifting and however they did not respond. On 26.07.2012 the Complainant sent a representation to the 2^nd opposite party complaining about the 6^th opposite party who has to attend the shifting. However the 2^nd Opposite Party did not take any action and the 6^th opposite party advised the Complainant to apply for a new connection. The 1^st opposite party is an appellate authority. The opposite parties willfully neglected to shift the Complainant connection to his new address and hence he had issued a legal notice dated 11.03.2013 to the opposite parties that they have committed deficiency in service. The telephone connection was disconnected during against 2012. However a bill dated 27.03.2013 sent to the Complainant for payment of R.623/- to the above said telephone connection. Even after issuance of legal notice, the opposite parties have not shifted the connection till the filling of the Complaint and  prayed to shift and install the telephone connection and for compensation with cost of the complaint. 

2. WRITTEN VERION OF THE 1^st TO 6^th OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties admits that the complainant was having telephone connection at Perambur address and submitted application to provide shifting of telephone to his new address. It is further admitted that the Complainant approached at Madhavaram customer care Centre to shift his telephone and they informed the Complainant to approach the Redhills Customer Care Centre. The Complainant also approached the Redhills Customer Care and submitted shifting application dated 07.07.2012 on 10.07.2012. Normally the shifting orders will be issued immediately. However in the case of the Complainant the shifting was not done due to non available of cable pair in that Puzhal area where the Complainant shifted his residence. After receipt of the shift order the staff inspected and found that there is no cable pair in the present address. In that area, nearly 1.5  kilometers stretch  of BSNL underground cables were damaged and therefore that area is technical non peaceable to shift connection. The opposite parties never advised the Complainant to apply for a new connection. The usage bill was only sent to the Complainant. After adjusting the said bill in the available deposit amount of Rs.1,250/- the balance sum of Rs.223/- is sanctioned for refund to the Complainant. Therefore the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. Since technically not peaceable to shift the Complainant connection and hence prays to dismiss the complaint.          

 

 

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO: 1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant was having BSNL land line and broadband connection provided by the opposite parties bearing  telephone phone No.044-25585194 at his residence No.15 Z /3, Shanthi Nagar, 2^nd street, Madhavaram, Perambur, Chennai – 600 011 and he shifted his residence in the month of June 2012 to the present address No. 335, Thiruneelakandan Nagar, 2^nd Street, Kavangarai, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 066  and he submitted Ex.A3 & Ex.B1 application to shift to his new address and the said telephone connection was disconnected on 10.07.2012 as per Ex.B2 order and the Complainant approached the customer care of the Madhavaram and Redhills customer care and however the opposite parties have not shifted the Complainant telephone to the new address.

          5. Admittedly Ex.B3 shift order has been given to shift the Complainant telephone connection from Perambur to the present Puzhal address. The specific contention in the written version of the opposite parties that for non providing shifting of telephone and broadband connection to the new address is that the underground cable were damaged during storm water drainage in the residence of the Complainant and since there is no cable pair to provide shifted to the present address as well as new line to the present address cannot be provided. This fact was not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed subsequent to the filing of the written version of the opposite parties. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that due to non availability of cable pair the shifting of Complainant telephone connection is not provided to him is accepted. The Complainant prayed in his complaint to order to shift and install the telephone connection. Since there is no cable pair available in the Complainant residence the said area technical not peaceable one to provide shifting connection and therefore we hold that the opposite parties have not willful by neglected to shift the connection to the new address and thereby they have not committed any deficiency in service.            

6. POINT NO: 2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11^th day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Copy of Ration Card of the Complainant

 

Ex.A2 dated 04.07.2012                   Complainant’s telephone bill payment      

 

Ex.A3 dated 07.07.2012                   Shifting application

 

Ex.A4 dated 26.07.2012                   Representation to the 2^nd Opposite Party and other

                                                Opposite Parties with acknowledgements

 

Ex.A5 dated 11.03.2013                   Legal Notice to the 1^st Opposite Party and other

                                                Opposite Parties with acknowledgements

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 07.07.2012                   Application form for shifting of Telephone

Ex.B2 dated 10.07.2012                   Disconnect order

Ex.B3 dated 10.07.2012                   Shift order

Ex.B4 dated 27.07.2013                   Refund order

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT