State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027



S.C. CASE NO. : FA/08/453



DATE OF FILING : 28.11.2008 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 08.05.2009


APPELLANT



Sri Sisirendra Nath Banerjee

S/o Late Rabindra Nath Banerjee

Rabindra Nagar, P.O. Rabindra Sarani

Dist. Darjeeling – 734 006.



RESPONDENTS



1. General Manager

Siliguri Telecom District

A.T.Mukherjee Road

Siliguri – 734 401.

2. The S.D.O. (PHONES) BSNL

Siliguri Telephone Exchange Buildings,

Hakimpara, P.O. Siliguri,

Dist. Darjeeling.

3. The SDE (PR)

O/O GM, Telecom, A.T.Mukherjee Road

Hakimpara, Siliguri,

Dist. Darjeeling.

4. The D.E. (Commercial)

O/O the G.M. Telecom,

A.T.Mukherjee Road,

Hakimpara, Siliguri,

Dist. Darjeeling.



BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Ms. M.Mondal, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. S.Sikdar, Ld. Advocate





: O R D E R :


MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY, LD. MEMBER

This Appeal arose out of judgement and order dt. 24.10.2008 passed by DCDRF, Darjeeling at Siliguri in its Consumer Case No. 116/S/2007 where the complainant, Sri Sisirendra Nath Banerjee’s complaint related to non-shifting of a telephone line to his changed address resulting in financial loss, inconvenience and harassment.

The Ops namely, The General Manager, Siliguri Telecom District and three others appeared and contended inter alia that the complainant was not a Consumer as the telephone line in question was not in his name. It was further argued that certain feed-back from the complainant was wanting, which was not disclosed in the complaint and, therefore, the Ops prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The Ld. District Forum after hearing both sides passed its judgement and order as under :-

“That the complaint be allowed on contest in part against the Ops with cost of Rs. 200/-.

The complainant is entitled to get an award in respect of shifting of telephone bearing No. 2523934 from College Para to Rabindra Nagar with compensation of Rs. 300/- for delaying shifting of telephone line and cost of Rs. 200/-.

Ops, who are jointly and severally liable, are directed to pay the award in respect of shifting of telephone line bearing No. 2523934 from College Para to Rabindra Nagar together with compensation of Rs. 300/- and cost of Rs. 200/- within one month from the date of this order.

In case of default the complainant will be at liberty to put the award in execution.”

Being aggrieved with the impugned judgement and order the complainant in the Forum namely, Sri Sisirendra Nath Banerjee, filed this Appeal stating inter alia that the Ld. Forum below was biased and came to an erroneous decision when it failed to realize the Ops/Respondents’ mysterious activities. It was further stated that the impugned judgement and order had totally ignored the points of issues, when telephone rules, documents and evidence were not heeded to. It was further contended that the issue of complainant’s having mobile connection as reflected in the judgement and order was never proved before the Ld. Forum. Accordingly, the Appellant prayed for higher assessment of the litigation cost and expenses and claimed accordant amount as deemed fit.

The Respondents entered appearance and submitted that firstly, the complainant had no case because the telephone line was not in his name and secondly, the telephone line could not be immediately shifted for want of certain particulars sought from the Appellant/Complainant, since not provided and also because of certain technical limitations like lack of availability of appropriate vacancies in the cable line and junction box.

The matter was heard from respective sides with filing of BNAs.


DISCUSSION

A. The Ops/Respondents’ contention that the Complainant/Appellant was not a Consumer does not hold water because the given telephone line was transferred in his name on a subsequent date prior to which the line was in the name of another. The other point agitated by the Respondents that certain particulars as were sought from the Appellant/Complainant were wanting is not supported by due evidence. On the other hand, the records speak eloquently that the Appellant/Complainant repeatedly prayed for transfer of his telephone line to his new address in which regard the Respondents did not act with alacrity.

B. The Ld. Forum below no doubt took note of the Appellant’s having simultaneous mobile connection without adequate supporting evidence. However, in assessing the compensation amount and cost of litigation the Ld. Forum below took a view which we cannot say to be improper or inadequate when business loss/opportunity cost/litigation cost were not quantified and supported with due evidence. It is also pertinent to note that the point relating to technical feasibility on immediate shifting of the telephone to the new address and limitations of cable availability and junction box permissibility were not weighed in the way it should have been given attention to. Taking note of the fact that the Ops not having filed any Appeal on the impugned judgement and order, we find the Appeal of the complainant lacks substance and merit. Accordingly, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed on contest without cost.
O R D E R

Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest without cost. The impugned judgement and order of the Ld. Forum below is affirmed.



MEMBER MEMBER