BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. K GAYATHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 in COP No.204/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore are the appellants herein. The facts leading to the appeal are as under : The complainant, an unemployed graduate, had an STD/isd booth. She paid the telephone bill on 1.3.2001 the due date to the 3rd opposite party. But on 8.3.2001 the telephone was disconnected and it was restored on 14.3.2001. The 3rd opposite party would state that he had given the payment particulars to the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties on 2.3.2001 itself. In spite of that, the telephone was disconnected. Alleging deficiency in service, the present complaint came to be filed for compensation in a sum of Rs.20,000 together with Rs.5,000 as costs.

(2.) The defence set up by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 was that all STD/isd booth franchisees had been instructed to produce the payment bill either at the Customer Service Centre or at the Principal General Manager's Office, Coimbatore to take down the payment particulars and to avoid any wrong disconnection of the telephone. Wide publicity had also been given. The message was also exhibited in the notice board available at the Cash Counter at the office of the Principal General Manager, Telecom Office, Mettupalayam Road, Coimbatore -43. The complainant having failed to take notice of these instructions and not having produced the receipt, there was justification on the part of opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to have effected the disconnection. There was no deficiency in service and after the disconnection the phone was reconnected on 14.3.2001. The complainant was also not a consumer. The 3rd opposite party, as already noted, received the payment on 1.3.2001 and reported the matter on 2.3.2001 to the Manager of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited authorities.

(3.) The District Forum found that the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 had not produced the rule or law or notification which required the subscriber to produce the post office payment particulars to the Telecom authorities; that the disconnection was illegal; that the franchise holder was also a consumer like any other subscriber with regard to the illegal disconnection in that there was payment of commission, etc. between the franchise holder and the Telecom Department. In that view of the matter, by order dated 9.1.2002, the District Forum directed the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to pay Rs.5,000 as compensation and Rs.1,000 as costs to the complainant within two months from the date of order. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.