D.o.F; 29/9/06<br /> D.o.O:29/8/08<br /> IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KASARAGOD<br /> CC.NO.110/06<br /> Dated this, the 29th day of August 2008<br /> PRESENT:<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ ; PRESIDENT<br /> SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER<br /> SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Kunhappa Naik,<br /> S/o Koragu Naik,<br /> Oniyadka House,<br /> BGP XIV-29 of Neerchal Po, : Complainant<br /> Kasaragod.<br /> <br /> <br /> 1.The Junior Engineer, <br /> BSNL,Perdala Exchange,<br /> Badiadka,Perdala Po. : Opposite parties<br /> <br /> 2. The Lineman of Nirchal Area,<br /> Perdala Exchange, Po.Perdala<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT<br /> The Case of Kunhappa Naik is that he had applied for a new landline phone connection at his house in July 2005 and paid a sum of Rs.500/- on 22/7/05 and he obtained a Reg.No.Non-077/gen/reg/1735/dtd 1/8/05. Thereafter, the J.E. BSNL Perdala Exchange and the lineman came to him with a WLL phone(Wireless in Local Loop) and compelled him to own it. Dissatisfied with the bitter experience of the service of the WLL phones at his relatives and neighbours house he refused to accept it. Therefore, they left out stating that there were no materials for landline connection and then onwards they are only providing WLL phone connections. His petitions to higher authorities did not heed any positive result. It is also his case that connections are provided overlooking his priority. Hence the complainant praying for an order to direct the opposite parties to provide a land line connection and a compensation of Rs.27500/-.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite parties entered appearance and the Divisional Engineer Telecom Uppala filed version for all the opposite parties. According to them there were no cable pair to provide land line connection to Kunhappa Naik and they offered WLL connections. But Kunhappa Naik refused it. The connections mentioned by the complainant which are said to have overlooked falls under different distribution points(DP) and no connections were provided from the DP point from which Kunhappa Naik could have been provided with telephone connections. There is no wilful delay or negligence on their part and the complaint liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant produced Exts.A1 to A7 in support of his case. Opposite party marked Ext.B1. Both sides were heard and the documents perused carefully.<br /> <br /> 4. To the interrogatories submitted by the complainant to the Divisional Engineer Telecom submitted answers as per which it is clear that the priority of Kunhappa Naik is overlooked and connection is provided to the applicants who applied for telephone connection subsequently . As per the system prevailing the applicants for telephone are put in different categories. As per Rule 22 of General Rules separate priority list is to be maintained. Rule 24 describes the allotment of telephone connections. If the opposite parties have got the authority to overlook the priority and provide connections at their whims and caprices then the very purpose of maintaining priority register itself became futile. Rule 30 details about the technical feasibility and bonafides of the applicants. Rule 30(iii) mandates for keeping a feasibility register exchange wise. Rule 30(viii) envisages that the skipped over classes due to non-feasibility should be reviewed periodically so as to ensure that such demands are met subsequently without undue delay Rule 34(viii) says that All the ‘ skipped over’ cases should be reviewed once in a month by a Gazetted officer of the rank of SDO and quarterly by an officer of the rank of DET.<br /> . <br /> 5. From the above quoted rules it is very clear that the skipped over connections shall be viewed seriously and connections shall be provided without undue delay. As rightly pointed out by the counsel for Kunhappa Naik in Ext.A7 dtd.27/9/06 it is stated that the landline connections through cable pair is not feasible at present. Hence it is only a temporary incapacity and what all were the steps taken by the opposite parties to over come the incapacity is quite unknown.<br /> 6. The next contention of opposite parties is that the complainant is refused to accept the WLL phone. To which the complainant submits that he came to know about the bitter experiences of his neighbours and relatives by installing the WLL phone. In such a situation he refusal to avail WLL phone connection is quite natural and no consumer can be compelled to avail such a connection against his will.<br /> For the foregoing reasons we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not providing the telephone connection.<br /> Therefore, we direct the opposite parties to provide landline telephone connection to the complainant Kunhappa Naik within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of order with a cost of Rs.1000/-, failing which opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the loss, hardships and mental agony sustained to the complainant. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br /> Exts:<br /> A1- Demand Notice<br /> A2-Booking Order<br /> A3- Dt.12/7/06-Complaint to Ops<br /> A4-dt.17/7/06-Reply from the Ops<br /> A5-dt.24/7/06-Appeal to GM, BSNL,Kannur <br /> A6-dt.18/8/06-Appeal to CGM,Trivandrum<br /> A7-22/9/06-Reply to the Ops<br /> B1-Map sketch<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> eva/<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />