DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25th day of February 2009.

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

: Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.117/2007

Naseema Babu

W/o. Ahammedunni

Naduvilavalappil veedu

Kumaranellur P.O.

Palakkad – 679 552. - Complainant

V/s

1. General Manager

B S N L

Palakkad.

2. Accounts Officer

B S N L

Palakkad. - Opposite Parties

O R D E R

By Smt. H. Seena, President

Facts in brief giving an occasion to file this complaint are as under.

1. Complainant was permitted to run a local public telephone (Coin collection box) by the Opposite parties. Complainant received commission for the same. Later as the bill amount was not paid, phone connection was disconnected. Complainant is aggrieved by the fact that opposite party issued bills of exhorbitant amount even after phone connection was disconnected. The complainant prays before the forum to set aside the said bill.

2. The Opposite parties contested the matter, inter alia, on the plea that the complainant is not a consumer and as such, the matter could not be decided by Consumer Forum. According to the Opposite parties, complainant is only a franchisee of BSNL Local public Telephone No.2276694 from Padinjarangadi telephone exchange, availing commission for operating public telephone for the use of general public on license terms.

- 2 -

3. Now the issues for consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act?

2. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the reliefs and costs?

Issue No.1.

Opposite parties has raised a contention that complainant is not a consumer. In The General Manager, Madras Telephones and other V R Kannan 1(1994) CPJ 14 (NC) and Divisional Engineer (Adm & Planning) Office of Telecom District Manager Sonepat and others Vs Kaushayla Devi III (2007) CPJ 315 NC, Honourable National Commission has held a franchise holder is only a licensee of the grantor of the franchise and the franchise holder who is maintaining and running a STD/PCO call office is not a consumer. In the light of the said decision we dismiss the complaint. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 25^th day of February 2009.

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

1. Ext. A1 - Copy of Telephone bill issued by BSNL to Smt. Naseema Babu

    

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party

1. Ext. B1 - Subscriber Record Card (SRC) as on March 2008.

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent