DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD<br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of January 2007.<br /> <br /> Present : Sri.Roy Kurian, President<br /> Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> Smt.K.P.Suma, Member<br /> C.C.No.50/2006<br /> <br /> Dr.Nayanthara,<br /> W/o.A.Krishnakumar,<br /> Prop.Dr.Menon's Nursing Home,<br /> Olavakkode. - Complainant<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> General Manager,<br /> Office of General Manager Telecom,<br /> Palakkad. - Opposite party <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> By Prof.O.Unnikrishnan, Member<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the proprietor of Dr.Menon's Nursing Home, Olavakkode. The aforesaid Nursing Home was founded and established by Dr.A.Achutha Menon about 40 years ago. According to the complainant Dr.Menon had huge debts and died in the year 2000. The Hospital and 43 cents of land had been mortgaged to Shri.Gokulam Chits by way of equitable mortgage. The complainant was the surety for above mentioned transaction. After the death of Dr.Menon, his wife and 2nd son were in management of the hospital. But his first son was employed as a doctor in the same hospital. Complainant further submits that the wife of Dr.Menon assigned the hospital and its property in her name (complainant's name) through the power of attorney as per the document No.936/2004 of SRO Olavakkode and handed over possession of the same to the complainant because she had discharged the<br /> <br /> - 2 -<br /> debt of the hospital. It is stated in the complaint that when she attempted to take possession of the above said hospital, the wife of Dr.Menon and his 2nd son filed a suit OS No.156/2004 and obtained an interim injunction as per IA 617/2004. The complainant appeared in the above suit, filed necessary documents and proved her possession and finally the said IA was dismissed. Now the complainant got title and possession on all properties including the hospital. As per the inventory report submitted by the commissioner in the afore mentioned suit, there are three telephone connections in the hospital with Nos 2555144, 2555999, 2557222. The above Telephone connections were taken by Dr.Achutha Menon in his name for hospital purposes when it was established above 40 years ago. The complainant states that finally the mediators interfered and the dispute was settled on 29/6/2005 and an agreement was executed among them on the said date. As per the agreement the complainant paid a sum of Rs.57 lakh to the wife of Dr.Menon and his son Hariprasad and they handed over the hospital and all other movable properties to the complainant on 6/10/2005. They also executed deeds No.2830/05, 2831/05, 2832/05, 2833/05 and 2834/05 and a letter of consent and understanding. It is alleged in the complaint that contrary to the terms of the agreement two phone connections 2555999 & 2557222 were disconnected by the opposite party at the request of wife of Dr.Menon and his son Hariprasad and subsequently connection 2555144 was also disconnected by the opposite party on 21.3.2006 at the request of Meenakshi Nethiar and Mr.Hariprasad. It is also submitted that the complainant was using the above Telephone connection after 6.10.05.as a property owned by Dr.Achutha Menon and his legal heirs and was paying its bills regularly. According to the complainant they have got no right to remove it or disconnect it through the opposite party as they are bound by the agreement dated 29/6/2005. The complainant filed an application before the opposite party and requested to reconnect it. But the opposite party has not done it for the reason that there was no undertaking by legal heirs of Dr.Menon that they will be liable for all charges to be incurred. The complainant submits that she is ready to undertake to pay all charges to be incurred out of above telephone connections<br /> - 3 -<br /> prepared to get them transferred and prepared to pay all bills also without fail and its rental regularly. It is highly necessary to get said connection reconnected and make it available to the complainant for her hospital purpose. The complainant states that the act on the part of opposite party is highly illegal and amounts to deficiency of service causing irreparable hardship to her. Feeling aggrieved, the complaint is filed before this Forum seeking an order directing opposite party to reconnect Telephone No.2555144, 2555999 and 2557222 in the hospital owned by the complainant as a transferee from the legal heirs of Dr.A.Achutha Menon and to grant such other reliefs as prayed from time to time which the honourable Forum deems fit along with entire cost of the complainant.<br /> <br /> The complaint was admitted. Notice was served to opposite party for their appearance before this Forum. Opposite party appeared and filed their version. Opposite party in their version averred that Sri.Hariprasad was the original subscriber of the Telephone numbers 2555999 & 2557222 and the above numbers are closed on his personal request on 6/10/2005. But the telephone number 2555144 was initially provided to Dr.Achutha Menon, 32/18, R.S.Road in his personal capacity and for the convenience of sending bills, the billing address was subsequently changed. The phone connection 2555144 in the name of late Dr.Achutha Menon was legally transferred to Meenakshi Nethiar and subsequently taken into safe custody as per her request along with necessary documents. According to existing rules, the complainant has no right, claim and authority whatsoever on the aforesaid telephones since these were initially alloted to Sri. Hariprasad and Dr.Achutha Menon in their names in their personal capacity as individuals and not as proprietor or of Dr.Menon's Nursing Home. The sale of the property of Nursing Home or the change of ownership of said hospital will no way affect the old status of the telephone alloted to the individuals on their request. According to opposite party, mere purchase of a firm or property does not confer a person the right to automatically become a bonafide subscriber of BSNL for which some proceedings and formalities are to be followed as per rules to get connection transferred to a third party's name with<br /> - 4 - <br /> the consent and approval of the previous owner / existing subscriber. The telephone connections and equipments are the sole property of BSNL and the same could Nethiar be sold nor purchased by anybody. The BSNL provides telephone facility to subscribers on rental basis and any change in name or address and ownership could be effected only with the consent of BSNL for which the bonafide subscriber or legal heir should intimate such request to concerned BSNL authorities well in advance. As per the Indian Telegraph rules 1951, no person is entitled to unauthorised use of BSNL phone without the completion of required procedural formalities and mere usage of these phones unauthorisedly does not confer ownership of the telephones. Opposite party submits that instead the complainant could have approached BSNL with a request immediately after the change of ownership of nursing home to regularize telephone connections. Opposite party states that the complainant is not a bonafide subscriber of above mentioned 3 BSNL telephones. It is averred in the version that she is the proprietor of Dr.Menon's Nursing Home, Olavakkode, a commercial establishment and hence does not come under the purview of section 2 (d) sub clause 1 of consumer protection act 1986 for seeking any relief. Hence the complaint is not maintainable in the jurisdiction of the Forum either by law or by facts. It is submitted that opposite party is willing to provide the new connection with the same closed number 2555999 and 2557222 which were working in the hospital. Hence it is prayed that the Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Both parties filed affidavits as well as documents. Heard the counsels appeared for the parties. <br /> <br /> The complaint was posted for adalath on 10/11/06. But the complainant or her counsel failed to appear for the adalath held on 10/11/06. Hence no settlement was reported.<br /> <br /> We perused all the documents on record. As per the records produced by <br /> - 5 -<br /> opposite party the telephone connections 2555999 & 2557222 were provided to Sri.Hariprasad in his personal capacity and the above numbers were closed on his personal request on 6/10/2005. It is true that the telephone numbers 2555144 was initially provided to Dr.Achutha Menon in his personal capacity and after his death the above telephone connection was legally transferred to his wife Meenakshi Nethiar, Now the phone connection number 2555144 was taken into opposite party's safe custody as per the request of Smt.Meenakshi Nethiar. But opposite party is willing to provide the complainant new telephone connections with the same closed number (2555999 & 2557222) which were working in the hospital. It is an admitted fact that mere purchase of a firm or a property does not confirm a person the right to automatically because a bonafide subscriber of opposite party since the telephone connection and equipment are the sole property of opposite party provided to the subscribers on rental basis. Therefore any change in the ownership could be effected only with the knowledge and consent of opposite party. Hence we are of the view that the complainant is not a bonafide subscriber of the telephone connection 2555144, 2555999 & 2557222.<br /> <br /> The disconnection of above mentioned telephone connection by opposite party on request of the bonafide subscribers does not amount to deficiency of service on their part. It is held that the complaint is devoid of merit and disallowed. In the result we dismiss the complaint without any costs.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of January 2007.<br /> <br /> President (SD)<br /> Member (SD)<br /> Member (SD)