VIJAYAN Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in O.P. No. 93/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanyakumari, is the appellant herein. His case was as follows : (a) The complainant applied for telephone connection under NOYT Scheme on 4.11.1999. He had deposited Rs. 3,000 for getting the connection. After two years, the opposite parties provided a telephone instrument on 20.5.2001. Even after the installation of the instrument, the opposite parties had not given connection till the filing of the complaint. The complainant had caused an advocate notice to be issued to the opposite party No. 3 on 6.6.2001. To this opposite party No. 3 sent a reply on 8.6.2001 stating that the instrument was installed on 20.5.2001 and falsely stated that the line was put through on 21.5.2001 which was false on the face of it and it was wrongly stated that the number was given as 641 874. Further, the complainant s registration Number was 1616. The opposite parties provided telephone connection to the Registration numbers 1745, 1746 and 2012 which were later registrations and the complainant and those applicants were neighbours and those person had deposited only Rs. 1,000 for getting connection. On account of negligence of the opposite parties, the complainant was prevented from using the phone. In these circumstances, he filed the complaint to provide telephone connection to him and to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000 for loss of earnings and to pay cost.

(2.) THE 3rd opposite party filed a version on behalf of the opposite parties contending inter alia as follows : The complaint had been filed with false notion and with an intention to harass the officers of BSNL. On expansion of Kollencode Exchange and on maturity of the waiting list No. 1616 advice note for providing telephone connection was issued by the SDO Telegraphs, Kuzhithurai and accordingly effective action was taken to provide a new telephone connection to the complainant along with the other eligible applicants. Accordingly, lines were drawn. A telephone instrument was placed in the premises of the complainant on 20.5.2001. The connection was put through on 21.5.2001 as 20.5.2001 happened to be a holiday. The telephone number of the complainant was informed by the lineman concerned and he was told that all connections were put through only on 21.5.2001. But the complainant filed the complaint with a false notion that the other telephone connections had been put through even on 20.5.2001. After the telephone connection was put through on 21.5.2001, there was no complaint from the complainant either over phone or in writing till 7.6.2001. The fault card taken out from the computer established the said fact. Subsequently, an advocate notice was received on 7.6.2001 and on verification at window level that the telephone was working and the proper working of the telephone was informed to the complainant s daughter and reply was also given to the advocate on 8.6.2001. The seniority of the complainant was never overlooked. The complainant had given a false complaint. He also refused to allow the officers of the department to check the telephone instrument and other accessories installed at his premises.

(3.) BEFORE the District Forum, on the side of the complainant, Exs. A1 to A11 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B13 were marked.