Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/26

OFFICER IN CHARGE BSNL KULANADA BSNL OFFICE - Complainant(s)

Versus

V G SASIDHARAKURUP - Opp.Party(s)

MATHEWS K PHILIP

27 Jan 2016

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 26/16

 

JUDGMENT DATED: 27.01.2016

 

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                         :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

 

1. Officer in Charge, Kulanada BSNL Office,

Kulanada.P.O, Pathanamthitta Dist.                             

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

 

2. General Manager, BSNL Office,

Thiruvalla, Pathanamthitta Dist.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Mathews K. Philip & Smt. Nazia Sharaf)

 

            Vs.

 

V.G. Sasidhara Kurup,

Vilapparambil Veedu,

Thattayil P.O, Pathanamthitta Dist.,                               : RESPONDENT

PIN – 691 525.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

This is an appeal filed by the opposite parties in CC.110/15 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pathanamthitta challenging the order of the Forum dated July 06, 2015 directing the opposite parties (BSNL) to reinstate the broadband connection of the complainant within 15 days if the complainant purchases a modem and report it to the opposite parties in time and to pay a cost of Rs.2000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 before the Forum and as detailed in the complaint in brief is this:-

Complainant is a customer of Thumpamon Telephone Exchange of first and 2^nd opposite parties, BSNL.  He is an internet subscriber.  When the internet connection failed he informed the first opposite party on May 22, 2015 and registered a complaint therein.  The first opposite party directed the complainant to test the modem and adaptor at Thumpamon exchange of BSNL.  After testing, a new modem was replaced to the complainant and net connection is restored.  For the delay caused in net connection he issued a notice on June 08, 2015 and June 30, 2015.  Opposite party informed him that the modem is repaired and kept in Kulanada office he can collect it.  When the complainant went to the office on that day he was forced to sit there for one hour and thereafter informed that the modem of the complainant is not on rental basis and he has to purchase a new modem from outside.  The attitude of the opposite parties had caused much inconvenience to the complainant.  Due to the absence of a net connection for 1 ½ months he has to spend Rs.1000/- for internet connection from outside.  He has claimed a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3.      First opposite party is the officer in charge of Kulanada BSNL Office.  The 2^nd opposite party is the General Manager of Thiruvalla BSNL office.  They in their version contended thus before the Forum.  The broadband connection was provided to the complainant by BSNL under a tariff scheme on customer owned modem basis.  Complainant used a modem purchased by him, BSNL has not charged any monthly rent on the consumer concerned.  The modem No.267420 had been checked at BSNL Office at Thumpamon and found it to be faulty and complainant was advised by a new one.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.      Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 and A2 series were marked on his side and opposite parties did not adduce any evidence before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the modem was not provided by the opposite parties, that from May 20, 2015   onwards  internet  connection  of the complainant was in default and

directed the opposite parties to reinstate the broadband connection of the complainant within 15 days of this order, if the complainant purchased a new modem and report it to the opposite party.  Forum also awarded a compensation of Rs.2000/-.  Opposite parties have now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      When the appeal came up for admission counsel for the appellant was heard.

6.      Complainant before the Forum produced Exts.A1 and A2 series.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the letter dated, June 08, 2015 asking the opposite parties to restore his internet connection.  Ext.A2 series are two bills dated, 8.9.2015 and 8.7.2015.  On the basis of Ext.A2 series bills, Forum found that modem was not provided by the opposite parties which appears to be correct.  Forum has also found that from May 20, 2015 onwards the internet connection of the complainant was in default and the opposite parties have not charged the amount towards the internet connection which appears to be correct.  The Forum has only ordered the opposite parties to reinstate the broadband connection of the complainant within 15 days of its order if the complainant purchased a new modem and report it to the opposite party in time and directed them to pay a cost of Rs.2000/-. We find no ground to interfere with the said findings of the Forum.

In the result we find no ground to admit the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

 

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER

 

 

VL.