D.o.F:20/09/2011
D.o.O:30/11/2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.NO.235/11
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2011
PRESENT:
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
A.Narayanan, S/o Thathravan Chandu,
Pananmthodu House,
Po.Ravaneshwaram, Chithari, Hosdurg. : Complainant
(Adv.A.Gangadharan,Kasaragod)
1.The Junior Telecom Officer,BSNL,
Telephone Exchange, Vellikoth, Po.Ajanur.
2. The Sub Divisional Officer of Telecom,
BSNL, Kanhangad Sub Divisional, Po.Kanhangad. : Opposite parties
3. The General Manager, BSNL,
Telecom District Kannur, Po Kannur.
(in person)
ORDER
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
Bereft of unnecessaries , the case of the complainant Narayanan is that the telephone connection No.2268541 coming under the jurisdiction of the opposite parties is not working since last 8 months. The complaints filed by him also not yield any result. Hence the complaint.
According to opposite parties, the complaint is not maintainable before the Forum in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CA.7687/2004 in the case of General Manager Telecom vs M.Krishnan & Anr. On merits they have absolutely no explanation for the non rectification of the defects of the telephone for 8 months.
Complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts.A1&A2 marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by opposite parties . Both sides heard . Documents perused.
The representative of opposite parties submitted that due to the lack of cables they are unable to rectify the defects of the telephone connection of the complainant and as and when the cables are available the defects would be rectified . It is submitted that he cannot say when the cable pairs would be available.
The telecom service is an essential service and the telecom department is expected to provide round the clock uninterrupted service to a subscriber. The department is collecting rent for keeping the telephone alive. The non rectification of the fault caused to the telephone of the complainant is definitely constitute deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is deplorable to note that the opposite parties are unable to say even the approximate time required for rectifying the defects.
However , we are unable to render any order on merits in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on Civil Appeal No.7687/2004 in the case of General Manager Telecom vs M.Krishnan & Anr.
In the light of the judgment above we direct the opposite parties to refer the matter to a suitable arbitrator for settlement within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which they shall be liable to pay `10,000/- to the complainant. No order as to cost.
Exts:
A1-Telephone bill
A2-Copy of complaint
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
eva
