Kerala

StateCommission

A/15/391

THE SUBDIVISIONAL ENGINEER BSNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

V M POULOSE - Opp.Party(s)

GS PRAKASH

10 Aug 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

IA.NO.653/2015 IN APPEAL NO.391/2015

ORDER DATED :10.08.2015

 

(This IA.No.653/2015 in Appeal No.391/2015 is filed against the order in CC.No.205/2014 on the file of CDRF, Malappuram order dated : 20.01.2015)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. The Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL, Telecom Centre,

Nilambur.P.O

Malappuram

 

2. The Accounts Officer (TR-II)

Refund of Deposits, BSNL,

Malappuram Telecome District

 

(By Adv.Sri.G.S.Prakash)

 

Vs

 

RESPONDENT

 

V.M.Poulose (Paul Valayil)

Valayil House,

Mampad.P.O

Malappuram – 676 542

 

 

 

 

                                                O R D E R

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

IA,.No.653/2015 is an application to condone the delay of 51 days in preferring the appeal by the opposite party in CC.No.205/2014 in the CDRF, Malappuram. It is seen that the complainant / respondent surrendered his BSNL land phone connection on 15.05.2013. But the opposite party / appellant failed to effect refund of the permissible deposit even after four and half months. The appellant / opposite party received notice from the consumer forum and entered appearance through a counsel. But after availing several chances they failed to file any version and there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. Hence an exparte order was passed directing refund of the security deposit of the complainant and the bill issued to the complainant was also canceled. Further Rs.10,000/- was allowed as compensation and Rs.2000/- was allowed as cost. The reason alleged in the application to condone the delay caused in filing the appeal is that administrative sanction for filing the appeal was delayed. This is no sufficient reason for delaying the filing of the appeal as it is an internal matter and the appellant should have seen that sanction was obtained within the time fixed for filing the appeal. In the absence of any reason, explaining the failure to file even the version the merit of the order cannot also be challenged. As there is delay in effecting refund of the security deposit certainly deficiency in service is also involved. So it appears that there is no merit in the appeal. At any rate absolutely no tenable reason is mentioned to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, the application to condone the delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the appeal is also dismissed.

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

Be/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

IA.NO.653/2015

IN

 APPEAL NO.391/2015

ORDER DATED :10.08.2015

 

 

                                                                              BE/