KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.945/04 JUDGMENT DATED.26.02.09 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Alappuzha in OP.No.155/03 PRESENT SMT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1. The Divisional Engineer, : APPELLANTS BSNL, Telecom Office, Cherthala. 2. The Sub Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Kuthiathode. (By Adv.G.S.Prakash) Vs. Varghese Joseph, : RESPONDENT Mappila parambil, Thuravoor Thekku.P.O., Thuravoor Thekku village. JUDGMENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER The opposite parties in OP.NO.155/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha are the appellants herein who are aggrieved by the directions contained in the order dated.6.7.04, whereby the Forum below has directed them to replace the WLL telephone provided to the complainant by a ‘b-Fone’ within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complainant has approached the Forum for a direction to the opposite parties to give connection through cable from Puthanchantha exchange which was newly started near the complainant’s house. 2. It is the case of the complainant that WLL telephone provided to him by the opposite party, which is working in electricity is out of order in most of the time. It is his further case that the opposite party had assured him that after a new telephone exchange to be started to function at Puthanchantha within 200m away from his house, the phone would be replaced with a cable phone and in spite of his request that was not done and hence the complaint. 3. The opposite parties filed version and contended that the WLL phone is a modern telecom technology to provide phone connection without cables and it is universally accepted. They further contended that the complainant had accepted the WLL connection by agreeing the terms and conditions prescribed for the purpose and that there was no agreement between the complainant and the BSNL to replace the WLL phone with ‘b-Fone’. Submitting that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Ext.A1. On the side of the opposite parties Exts.B1 to B8were marked. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued before us that the direction of the Forum to replace the WLL phone with a ‘b-Fone’ is illegal and hence unsustainable. He has argued before us that there was no agreement between the parties to replace the WLL phone with a ‘b-Fone’ if the WLL phone becomes faulty. He has also argued that the complainant has not registered any complaint regarding the fault of WLL phone and that the complainant has not adduced any evidence to that effect. It is also his case that the complainant has not applied for a ‘b-Fone’ and if he had applied for such a phone that could have been considered and that the Forum’s order to replace the phone without any application is unsustainable. 6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusing the documents produced by the appellant in support of the contentions we find that as per Ext.B2 the complainant had given an undertaking for getting the FWT connection in lieu of the land line telephone and she has agreed to the conditions stipulated in Ext.B2. Ext.B1 is the application given by the complainant for getting connection from Kuthiyathode exchange and on a perusal of the application it is no where stated that he has applied for a ‘b-Fone’. In the said circumstances the Forum’s directions to the appellants/opposite parties to replace the WLL phone with a ‘b-Fone’ cannot be sustained. In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated.6.7.04 in OP.NO.155/03 of CDRF, Alappuzha. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. SMT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN | | 
