BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy B. Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 29th day of July, 2005
CD No. 129/2004
N.Srinivas Reddy,
S/o. N.Parvatha Reddy,
R/o. 45/24/K55,
Ameena Abbas Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant.
-Vs-
1. The Manager, B.S.N.L (GM),
Near Govt. Printing Press,
Kurnool.
2. The General Manager (Cellone),
C.T.O Building, IInd Floor,
Secunderabad-500003. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 28.7.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri N. Srinivasa Reddy and Sri M.D.V. Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C. Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to restore land line immediately, to pay Rs. 95,000/- as compensation, for the period from September, 2004 to November 2004, Rs. 5,000/- as exemplary costs, costs of the proceedings and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitle in the circumstance of the case.
2. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant is subscriber of opposite parties having land Phone connection installed on 24.1.2000 and from the date of installation, the complainant paid the rent of said Telephone bearing No. 253302 without any default. From the last one week the complainant telephone was not working even after payment of rents, on the complaint made by the complainant the opposite parties informed that there were not dues on the land phone bearing No. 253302, but mentioned that the complainant’s land phone bearing No.9440290350 bill is pending, hence, the land phone was disconnected. The complainant submits that he was never in default of bills for land phone and the opposite parties cannot disconnect the land phone connection for non payment of cell phone bill and the rules of land connection and the cell phone are different. Hence, there appears dereliction of the opposite parties in not restoring the land phone of the
complainant, even after payment of bill for the said Telephone and there appear deficiency of service on part of opposite party to the complainant.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Xerox copy of notice of the complainant dt 7.10.2004 addressed to opposite parties (2) bill receipt two in number bearing receipts No.s 675 and 676 (3) postal acknowledgment (4) land phone bill dt 6.9.2004 and (5) cell phone invoice dt 15.7.2004, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of the complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.5 for its appreciation in this case and suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice as to this case of the complainant the opposite party No.1 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version and opposite party No.2 did not appear before this Forum and remained exparte through out the case proceedings.
5. The written version of opposite party No.1 submits that they provided BSNL Land Telephone to the complainant on 24.1.2000 bearing No. 53302 and also BSNL Cell One Mobile Connection bearing NO. 9440290350 with national roaming facility, the complainant is a defaulter to BSNL cell one mobile connection to the extent of Rs. 16,601/-. Inspite of many reminders the complainant did not pay the outstanding dues of his cell one mobile connection as both the land line
and mobile connections belong to the opposite party the opposite party disconnected the land phone of the complainant. It further submits the opposite party did not collected any securing deposit from the complainant, while providing Cell One Connection to the complainant as the complainant became a defaulter for not payment of bills for mobile connection the security deposit of Rs. 1440/- deposited at the time of providing land line was adjusted to Cell one bill. It further submits that Cell One Mobile Connection agreement terms and conditions signed by the complainant, as per clause No.11.4, it is clearly mentioned that the scope of “Cellular Services is Governed by the statutory guidelines issued by the Telecom Regular Authority and Government of India” within the parameters of license agreement expected with ministry of communications Government of India. The Cellular Phone services are governed by the India Telegraphic Act 1885 and Indian Telegraph Rules 1951 framed under the same act, as amended from time to time and customer shall abide by them”. As per rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules which says it a subscriber failed to pay his bills due by him, any other telephone or telephones or any telegraphs rented by him may be disconnected without notice.
6. The opposite parties further submits that the complainant became a defaulter to the mobile connection of the opposite party, hence the other connection i.e land line was disconnected as per rule 443 of Indian Telegraph Rules. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party in disconnecting the Mobile Connection of the complainant and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
7. The opposite party No.1 in support of its case relied on the following documents Viz (1) application of the complainant for opening mobile connection (2) terms and condition for B.S.N.L Cellular connection (3) land phone bill of the complainant dt 6.9.2002 and (4) payment receipt bearing No. 634078 for payment of Rs. 599/-, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 to B.4 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
9. It is the simple case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties for disconnecting land phone bearing No. 253302, even after regular payment of bills of the said phone. But as against to it the written version of opposite parties allege that the complainant had two connections of (1) Land Phone bearing No. 253302 and (2) Mobile Cellular connection bearing No. 9440290350 installed by opposite party. The complainant was defaulter in respect of Mobile connection up to Rs. 16,601/- and inspite of many remainders the complainant did not pay the said arrear bill. Hence the other connection of the complainant i.e land line was disconnected by the opposite party as per clause No. 11.4 of terms and conditions of Cellular One Mobile Connection agreement, which says that the cellular phone service are Governed by Indian Telegraphic Act 1885 and Indian Telegraph Rules 1951. The rule 443, Indian Telegraph Rules says that when subscriber did not pay the Telephone bills due by him, any Telephone or Telephones or any Telegraphic services rented by him may by disconnected without notice. Therefore there appears no fault of opposite parties in disconnecting the said land phone of the complainant. The complainant did not place any other cogent material in the support of his case and any other material rebutting the contentions of the opposite parties, subsequent to the said statement of the opposite parties. Hence, their remains any bonafidies of the complainant in that regard. Therefore the complainant is not remaining entitled to seek any relief againsts the opposite party and hence the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
10. In the result the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 29th day of July, 2005.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nil For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of notice of the Complainant dated 7.10.2004 Addressed to
opposite party.
Ex.A2 Bill receipts two in number bearing receipts No.s 675 & 676.
Ex.A3 Postal acknowledgment.
Ex.A4 Land phone bill dated 6.9.04.
Ex.A5 Cell phone invoice dated 15.7.2004.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Application of the com- plainant for opening Mobile connection.
Ex.B2 Terms and conditions for B.S.N.L Cellular ER Connection.
Ex.B3 Land phone bill of the Copy was complainant dated 6.9.02.
Ex.B4 Payment receipt bearing No. 634078 for payment of Rs.599/-.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
Copy to:-
- N. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for complainant.
- M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate for opposite party No.1
3. The General Manager (Cellone), opposite party NO.2
C.T.O Building, IInd Floor, Secunderabad-500003.
Copy was made on ready :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was delivered to parties :
