Kailash Verma S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bhagat & Borthers R/o Kamalpur Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur.


......... Complainant

versus


1.

TDM, BSNL, Hoshiarpur, through its General Manager, Telephone Bhawan, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur.
2.

Account Officer (TR), office of GMT (D), BSNL, Hoshiarpur, Telephone Bhawan, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur.


........... Opposite Parties





1.

The complainant namely Kailash Verma has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant got internet connection vide consumer No. PBHSP-20060434851, Telephone No. PBT/256810 from OP No.1 to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment.
2.

It is further the case of the complainant that he got the said connection under the “Home Plan” of Broad Band Charges of Rs.250/- per month for unlimited use and for 1 GB Download. The complainant has been paying all the bills in time and no bill was pending with him except the bill No. T050520093894992 dated 5.5.2009 and bill No. T050620094011352 dated 5.6.2009.
3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to receive the bill dated 5.5.2009 for Rs. 47,013/- without any notice. The complainant approached the office of the opposite parties, but of no avail. The complainant told the opposite parties that he used to receive the Bill of Rs. 250/- as Broad Band charges, but the opposite parties put pressure to deposit the said amount in dispute. The complainant made an application to the opposite parties on 29.5.2009 against excess bill. The OP No. 2 gave reply on 15.6.2009, qua which a rebate of 15% in bill dated 5.5.2009 was allowed.


The complainant was again surprised to receive the bill dated 5.6.2009 for Rs. 2,115/- as broad band charges without getting any notice of excess bill. That the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 250/- per month for the bills dated 5.5.2009 to 5.6.2009 and the excess demand of opposite parties is wrong and illegal. The complainant approached the opposite parties to modify the bills in dispute. It has been prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from recovering Rs. 47013 and Rs. 2115/- as broad band charges in the bills dated 5.5.2009 and 5.6,.2009 and to issue revised bills of Rs. 250/- per month each, hence this complaint.
4.

The OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte on 9.7.2009.
5.

The OP No. 2 filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis misjoinder of parties and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that the Broad band connection was installed on 30.8.2008. It is further replied that as a matter of fact, due to fault in the system of the replying OP, the bill for actual user of the broad band facility for the period ending April, 2009 could not be sent to the complainant, although he had been using the broad band facility right from its installation and thereafter, a consolidated bill for the user of the facility for the past months was raised by the replying OP on the basis of actual user made by the complainant. That the complainant made a representation and rebate of 15% was given to him. There was no fault in the bill raised by the replying OP. Rebate of 15% was given to the complainant on account of the fact that the replying OP did not raise the bill every month as required and later on sent a consolidated bill to the complainant.
6.

It is further replied that Rs. 250/- are minimum charges and every consumer is bound to pay the bill as per the actual user of the facility. That since the consumer has been using the service for commercial purpose, therefore, he is not a consumer and the present complaint is not triable by this Forum.
7.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, receipt dated 12.5.2008 – Ex. C-2, bill of Rs. 672/- - Ex. C-3, bill of Rs. 49,225/- - Ex. C-4, bill of Rs. 2,679/- - Ex. C-5, letter dated 15.6.2009 – Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.
8.

In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shiv Kumar – Ex. OP-1, detail of Bills – Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
9.

The learned counsel for the complainant and OP No. 2 filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
10.

The complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the demand of Rs. 47,013/- and Rs. 2,115/- raised qua bills dated 5.5.2009 and 5.6.2009 – Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5 on account of Broad Band charges is illegal, therefore, in the circumstances, the opposite parties are directed to make necessary enquiry within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order after, affording an opportunity to the complainant, and thereafter give the necessary refund/rebate to the complainant. In case, the complainant does not feel satisfied with the enquiry, he has the right to approach this Court by filing the fresh complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

M/s. Nav Bharat Roller Flour Mills Bye Pass Salwara Road, Bharwain Road, Salwara, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, through its Partner Arvind Khosla son of Charanjit Khosla.

......... Complainant

versus


Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur, through General Manager Telecom.


.......... Opposite Party




1.

The present complaint has been filed by M/s. Nav Bharat Roller Flour Mills, through its partner Arvind Khosla, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of telephone No. 239372. The complainant is also enjoying the broad band facility from January, 2008 onwards. The complainant is regularly paying the telephone bills to the opposite party, thus he is a consumer.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was shocked to receive the telephone bill dated 26.5.2009 amounting to Rs.59,373/-, wherein the amount of Rs. 53,649/- was claimed for the use of broad band facility. The complainant approached the opposite party with the request to rectify the bill, but of no consequences. The earlier telephone bills of the complainant were Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-. The demand of rs. 59,373/- raised through bill dated 26.5.2009 is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.
3.

The opposite parties filed the reply. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant started using broad band facility with effect from January, 2008, but did not pay the requisite charges till April, 2009. The total amount payable from January, 2008 to April, 2008 comes to Rs. 53,399/-, thus a bill for the amount of Rs. 53,399/- was sent to the complainant for payment, as such, the demand raised by the replying OP is legal and is based on actual consumption.
4.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, detail of bills – Mark-A, bill dated 26.5.2009 – Mark-B, bill dated 23.4.09 – Mark-C, bill dated 23.3.2009 – Mark-D and closed the evidence.
5.

In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Ram Sudhar Singh – Ex.OP-1, details – Mark OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
6.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
7.

The complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the demand raised qua bill payable on 26.5.2009 amounting to Rs. 59,373 – Mark-B is illegal, therefore, in the circumstances, the opposite party is directed to make necessary enquiry within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order after, affording an opportunity to the complainant, and thereafter give the necessary refund/rebate to the complainant. In case, the complainant does not feel satisfied with the enquiry, he has the right to approach this Forum by filing the fresh complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Padala Pavan Kumar,

Rep. by his GPA Holder Sara Devidas,

S/o. S.V.L.Naidu,

R/o.Padalavari Street,

Nagarampalem, Guntur.



C/o. V.Nagaraju, Advocate,

Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant



AND



The General Manager,

B.S.N.L. Telecom Department,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Opposite party









O R D E R





This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,430/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and for costs.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant has applied for new telephone connection in the year 1996 and paid Rs.3000/- as security deposit vide receipt No.6262 dt.04-06-1996 and the opposite party registered the same vide receipt No.18800 dt.22-07-1996. Unfortunately, the opposite party denied the new connection vide its letter dt.06-09-1999 on a pretext that the signature is not tallied. The complainant requested the opposite party to return the security deposit of Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. But the opposite party refused the same.


Then the complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.19-04-08 through his counsel demanding the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.3000/-. The same was received by the opposite party and the opposite party issued reply notice with all false allegations. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for return of amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., from 22-10-1996. Thus, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit, Rs.300/- towards legal expenses, Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,130/- towards interest. In total the complainant claimed Rs.10,430/-.

The opposite party filed its counter affidavit, which is in brief is as follows:

Most of the averments in the complaint are not true. It is submitted by opposite party that for providing new connection to the complainant in the given address, the field staff reported that the signature is not tallied with that of the given signature and a letter was addressed on 06-09-99 to the complainant with a request to communicate reply if any to the customer service center or over phone 248200 during the office hours, if no reply was received within a stipulated period, the name of the complainant has to be deleted from the list and advised to get refund of the deposit. Since then the organization has not received any communication from the complainant. After a long silence of nine years, the complainant has sent a registered notice to the organization for which a prompt reply was sent intimating that it is a time barred claim and requested not to resort in a court of law for a bad cause of action. Inspite of reply, the complainant has filed this complaint, which is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his contentions made in the complaint reiterating the same. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the letter dt.06-09-99 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the receipt bearing No.18800 issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is the demand notice of opposite party dt.22-10-1996. Ex.A4 is the cash receipt for Rs.3000/-. Ex.A5 is the copy of registered notice addressed to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.A7 is the reply registered notice got issued by opposite party. Ex.A8 is the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Pavan Kumar Padala in favour of Devidas Sara to represent him in the court.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

POINT No.1

It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit for obtaining new telephone connection from the opposite party. As per procedure the opposite party has verified about the complainant at given address, but he was not found and signature is not tallied. Hence, the opposite party sent a letter under Ex.A1 intimating the complainant that the signature is not tallied and as such the complainant is requested to communicate his reply if any within 14 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A1 for taking further action by the opposite party, and if no reply is received within the stipulated time his name will be deleted from the waiting list records of opposite party and the complainant is advised to get refund of the deposit. The said letter Ex.A1 was issued on 06-09-99 by the opposite party.


During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that inspite of number of oral demands made by the complainant for refund of deposit amount, the opposite party has not returned the said amount to the complainant, for which the complainant failed to produce any evidence. During the course of arguments, the counsel for opposite party submitted that inspite of letter issued by opposite party under Ex.A1 on 06-09-99 no communication has been received from the complainant till the issue of registered notice under Ex.A5 by the complainant. The complainant issued a registered notice on 19-04-08 to the opposite party demanding refund of security deposit made by him along with interest @ 6% p.a. for which the opposite party issued reply notice under Ex.A7 stating that the complaint is time barred, since it is filed after a long silence of 9 years.

On perusal of Ex.A1, A5 and A7, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is time barred since he has received the letter dt.06-09-99 under Ex.A1 and kept silent till 2008 and issued a registered notice on 19-04-08. For which the opposite party has replied under Ex.A7 stating that the claim of the complainant is time barred. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This issue is answered accordingly against the complainant.

POINT No.2

In view of the time barred claim by the complainant, the complaint has to be dismissed. However we observe that the opposite party is at liberty to consider the claim of the complainant in the interest of natural justice.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.

K.Sreedharan,

Priya Nivas,

P.O.Eachur, Kannur Dist. Complainant




1. General Manager,

BSNL, Telecom District,

Thavakkara, Kannur.

2. Dvisional Engineer,

Telecom, BSNL, Kannur 1. Opposite parties

3. Secretary,

Eachur Service co.op.Bank,

Eachur.






O R D E R




This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22, 422/- with cost.

The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder and a regular customer of 3rds opposite party. On13.10.2005 at about 12.30 P.M he had gone to the bank with his Maruthi 800 car having No.Kl.13 H.1729 and parked the car in front of the bank in the compound. After completing the transaction, he came out and to his utter dismay noticed that the car was completely disfigured by paint spilled from the top. When he viewed the surrounding, he noticed that on the top of the bank building some workers were working for the construction of Tower for opposite parties 1 and 2 and it was on account of their utter negligence and carelessness the paint was spilled and fell on the car during their work. At the time of parking the car there was no sign board or other indication restricting the parking of the vehicle. Immediately the complainant orally made complaint about the incident to 3rd opposite party and also contacted 2nd opposite party through telephone.


When contacted the 2nd opposite party apologized for damage and assured that the BSNL would looked into and give compensation for the damage. So the complainant took the car to popular Vehicles they have estimated Rs.12122/- and gave a quotation. The damage caused to the vehicle is purely on account of the utter negligence and deficiency of service of opposite party. It is the bounden duty of opposite parties to warn customers by restricting the parking of vehicle near such construction. The complainant had sustained Rs.12, 122/- as repair charge, Rs.300/- notice charge and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. This loss was due to the negligent act of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed version. 3rd opposite party also appeared through Adv.A.Abdul Azeez and filed version.

The opposite parties1 and 2 contended that the complaint is not a consumer as per the Act. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They further contended that the work of construction and painting the tower at Eachur was carried out by a contractor who is solely responsible for the alleged loss or damage if any caused to the complainant and hence he should be a party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unaware of the incident till11.11.05. On 11.11.05, the 2nd opposite party told the complainant the above fact that a contractor is constructing the tower.


The complainant was also told the name and designation of officer of Indian Mobile Communication Wing, but no steps was taken by the complainant. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 have no liability. Moreover, the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is not due to the negligence of deficiency of opposite parties 1 and 2. The contractor of BSNL mobile wing has provided 24 hours security at the site and if the paint was spilled accidentally over the complainant’s car, he should have reported the matter to the Security or to any responsible person. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3rd opposite party also filed version and contended that they had leased 30 sq.meter on the roof top of then bank building to BSNL for the construction of 27 sq.meter tower and one room having the area of approximately 150 sq.ft. Accommodating associated equipments as per the agreement dt.16.5.05. As per the agreement, the construction work or the subsequent function is not in any way related to the opposite party. There is sufficient space in the compound to park the vehicle of customer and this opposite party has no reason to warn any customer or to put sign board. The alleged spilling of paint and disfiguration of the car is only due to the negligence of the workers appointed by BSNL. So the bank is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as the owner of the building. So there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2,DW1and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4, C1 and B1 to B3 (2)

Issue Nos. 1 & 2

Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant is not a consumer of them as per consumer protection act. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant has not purchased or hired any service from them. The complaint is filed for compensation for repainting his car which was occurred due to spilling of paint over the complainant’s car bearing No.KL.13.H.1729 on 13.10.05, while he parked his car in front of 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant the paint was spilled over his car due to the negligence of workers working for the construction of BSNL Mobile tower on roof-top of bank’s building.


It is true that the complainant has not purchased or availed any service from the opposite party with respect to the subject matter of the complaint. So it is seen that the complainant is not a consumer with respect to opposite parties 1 and 2. But regarding 3rd opposite party admittedly complainant is a regular customer of 3rd opposite party and Ext.A4 proves that on the date of alleged incident also he has availed the service of 3rd opposite party by paying LIC premium through the bank. So undoubtedly it is clear that the complainant had availed service of 3rd opposite party on 13.10.05 and hence the complainant is a consumer of 3rd opposite party and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

The complainant’s further case is that all the opposite parties are liable for the alleged incident and hence all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. But it is found that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence they have no liability to compensate the complainant. The remaining question is whether the 3rd opposite party has any liability co compensate the complainant. It is true that an establishment must take care of its customers who has been using the premises for their transaction and to provide safety measures to a customer who has entered in the premises for availing their service. The DW2 ie.3rd opposite party deposed that “ Bank sâ property 8 cent BWv. AXn 7 cent covering D*v. Compound \pf-fn car park sN¿m-\p-ff ØeT apgp-h³ roofing BWv. So from this it is seen that the 3rd opposite party had taken much care of its customers. The case of the complainant is that he had parked his car in front of the bank. If it is parked inside the compound, which has roofing, the alleged incident would not have occurred.


So it cannot be considered that the 3rd opposite party ought to have taken much care about the car parked outside the compound under open air. So we cannot attribute negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party by saying that they have to take car all its surroundings like a panchayth or Municipality. So in this case from the available evidence on record, it can be seen that there was no negligent or deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 since he has not availed any service from them. Hence issueNo.1 and 2 found against complainant.

Kailash Verma S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bhagat & Borthers R/o Kamalpur Chowk, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur.


......... Complainant

versus


1. BSNL, Hoshiarpur, through its General Manager, Telephone Bhawan, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur.
2.

Account Officer (TR), office of GMT (D), BSNL, Hoshiarpur, Telephone Bhawan, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur.


........... Opposite Parties





1.

The complainant namely Kailash Verma has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant got internet connection vide consumer No. PBHSP-20060434851, Telephone No. PBT/256810 from OP No.1 to earn his livelihood by way of self-employment.
2.

It is further the case of the complainant that he got the said connection under the “Home Plan” of Broad Band Charges of Rs.250/- per month for unlimited use and for 1 GB Download. The complainant has been paying all the bills in time and no bill was pending with him except the bill No. T050520093894992 dated 5.5.2009 and bill No. T050620094011352 dated 5.6.2009.
3.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was surprised to receive the bill dated 5.5.2009 for Rs. 47,013/- without any notice. The complainant approached the office of the opposite parties, but of no avail. The complainant told the opposite parties that he used to receive the Bill of Rs. 250/- as Broad Band charges, but the opposite parties put pressure to deposit the said amount in dispute. The complainant made an application to the opposite parties on 29.5.2009 against excess bill. The OP No. 2 gave reply on 15.6.2009, qua which a rebate of 15% in bill dated 5.5.2009 was allowed.


The complainant was again surprised to receive the bill dated 5.6.2009 for Rs. 2,115/- as broad band charges without getting any notice of excess bill. That the complainant is liable to pay the amount of Rs. 250/- per month for the bills dated 5.5.2009 to 5.6.2009 and the excess demand of opposite parties is wrong and illegal. The complainant approached the opposite parties to modify the bills in dispute. It has been prayed that the opposite parties be restrained from recovering Rs. 47013 and Rs. 2115/- as broad band charges in the bills dated 5.5.2009 and 5.6,.2009 and to issue revised bills of Rs. 250/- per month each, hence this complaint.
4.

The OP No. 1 was proceeded against ex-parte on 9.7.2009.
5.

The OP No. 2 filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis misjoinder of parties and jurisdiction were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. However, it is admitted that the Broad band connection was installed on 30.8.2008. It is further replied that as a matter of fact, due to fault in the system of the replying OP, the bill for actual user of the broad band facility for the period ending April, 2009 could not be sent to the complainant, although he had been using the broad band facility right from its installation and thereafter, a consolidated bill for the user of the facility for the past months was raised by the replying OP on the basis of actual user made by the complainant. That the complainant made a representation and rebate of 15% was given to him. There was no fault in the bill raised by the replying OP. Rebate of 15% was given to the complainant on account of the fact that the replying OP did not raise the bill every month as required and later on sent a consolidated bill to the complainant.
6.

It is further replied that Rs. 250/- are minimum charges and every consumer is bound to pay the bill as per the actual user of the facility. That since the consumer has been using the service for commercial purpose, therefore, he is not a consumer and the present complaint is not triable by this Forum.
7.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, receipt dated 12.5.2008 – Ex. C-2, bill of Rs. 672/- - Ex. C-3, bill of Rs. 49,225/- - Ex. C-4, bill of Rs. 2,679/- - Ex. C-5, letter dated 15.6.2009 – Ex. C-6 and closed the evidence.
8.

In rebuttal, the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shiv Kumar – Ex. OP-1, detail of Bills – Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party No. 2.
9.

The learned counsel for the complainant and OP No. 2 filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
10.

The complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the demand of Rs. 47,013/- and Rs. 2,115/- raised qua bills dated 5.5.2009 and 5.6.2009 – Ex. C-4 and Ex. C-5 on account of Broad Band charges is illegal, therefore, in the circumstances, the opposite parties are directed to make necessary enquiry within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order after, affording an opportunity to the complainant, and thereafter give the necessary refund/rebate to the complainant. In case, the complainant does not feel satisfied with the enquiry, he has the right to approach this Court by filing the fresh complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

M/s. Nav Bharat Roller Flour Mills Bye Pass Salwara Road, Bharwain Road, Salwara, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur, through its Partner Arvind Khosla son of Charanjit Khosla.

......... Complainant

versus


Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Railway Mandi, Hoshiarpur, through General Manager Telecom.


.......... Opposite Party




1.

The present complaint has been filed by M/s. Nav Bharat Roller Flour Mills, through its partner Arvind Khosla, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Put briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant is the holder of telephone No. 239372. The complainant is also enjoying the broad band facility from January, 2008 onwards. The complainant is regularly paying the telephone bills to the opposite party, thus he is a consumer.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that he was shocked to receive the telephone bill dated 26.5.2009 amounting to Rs.59,373/-, wherein the amount of Rs. 53,649/- was claimed for the use of broad band facility. The complainant approached the opposite party with the request to rectify the bill, but of no consequences. The earlier telephone bills of the complainant were Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/-. The demand of rs. 59,373/- raised through bill dated 26.5.2009 is stated to be illegal, hence this complaint.
3.

The opposite parties filed the reply. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant started using broad band facility with effect from January, 2008, but did not pay the requisite charges till April, 2009. The total amount payable from January, 2008 to April, 2008 comes to Rs. 53,399/-, thus a bill for the amount of Rs. 53,399/- was sent to the complainant for payment, as such, the demand raised by the replying OP is legal and is based on actual consumption.
4.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit – Ex. C-1, detail of bills – Mark-A, bill dated 26.5.2009 – Mark-B, bill dated 23.4.09 – Mark-C, bill dated 23.3.2009 – Mark-D and closed the evidence.
5.

In rebuttal, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Ram Sudhar Singh – Ex.OP-1, details – Mark OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
6.

The learned counsel for the parties have filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
7.

The complainant has not produced sufficient evidence to prove that the demand raised qua bill payable on 26.5.2009 amounting to Rs. 59,373 – Mark-B is illegal, therefore, in the circumstances, the opposite party is directed to make necessary enquiry within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order after, affording an opportunity to the complainant, and thereafter give the necessary refund/rebate to the complainant. In case, the complainant does not feel satisfied with the enquiry, he has the right to approach this Forum by filing the fresh complaint. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Padala Pavan Kumar,

Rep. by his GPA Holder Sara Devidas,

S/o. S.V.L.Naidu,

R/o.Padalavari Street,

Nagarampalem, Guntur.



C/o. V.Nagaraju, Advocate,

Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant



AND



The General Manager,

B.S.N.L. Telecom Department,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Opposite party









O R D E R




This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,430/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and for costs.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant has applied for new telephone connection in the year 1996 and paid Rs.3000/- as security deposit vide receipt No.6262 dt.04-06-1996 and the opposite party registered the same vide receipt No.18800 dt.22-07-1996. Unfortunately, the opposite party denied the new connection vide its letter dt.06-09-1999 on a pretext that the signature is not tallied. The complainant requested the opposite party to return the security deposit of Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. But the opposite party refused the same.


Then the complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.19-04-08 through his counsel demanding the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.3000/-. The same was received by the opposite party and the opposite party issued reply notice with all false allegations. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for return of amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., from 22-10-1996. Thus, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit, Rs.300/- towards legal expenses, Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,130/- towards interest. In total the complainant claimed Rs.10,430/-.

The opposite party filed its counter affidavit, which is in brief is as follows:

Most of the averments in the complaint are not true. It is submitted by opposite party that for providing new connection to the complainant in the given address, the field staff reported that the signature is not tallied with that of the given signature and a letter was addressed on 06-09-99 to the complainant with a request to communicate reply if any to the customer service center or over phone 248200 during the office hours, if no reply was received within a stipulated period, the name of the complainant has to be deleted from the list and advised to get refund of the deposit.


Since then the organization has not received any communication from the complainant. After a long silence of nine years, the complainant has sent a registered notice to the organization for which a prompt reply was sent intimating that it is a time barred claim and requested not to resort in a court of law for a bad cause of action. Inspite of reply, the complainant has filed this complaint, which is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his contentions made in the complaint reiterating the same. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the letter dt.06-09-99 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the receipt bearing No.18800 issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is the demand notice of opposite party dt.22-10-1996. Ex.A4 is the cash receipt for Rs.3000/-. Ex.A5 is the copy of registered notice addressed to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.A7 is the reply registered notice got issued by opposite party. Ex.A8 is the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Pavan Kumar Padala in favour of Devidas Sara to represent him in the court.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

POINT No.1

It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit for obtaining new telephone connection from the opposite party. As per procedure the opposite party has verified about the complainant at given address, but he was not found and signature is not tallied. Hence, the opposite party sent a letter under Ex.A1 intimating the complainant that the signature is not tallied and as such the complainant is requested to communicate his reply if any within 14 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A1 for taking further action by the opposite party, and if no reply is received within the stipulated time his name will be deleted from the waiting list records of opposite party and the complainant is advised to get refund of the deposit. The said letter Ex.A1 was issued on 06-09-99 by the opposite party.


During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that inspite of number of oral demands made by the complainant for refund of deposit amount, the opposite party has not returned the said amount to the complainant, for which the complainant failed to produce any evidence. During the course of arguments, the counsel for opposite party submitted that inspite of letter issued by opposite party under Ex.A1 on 06-09-99 no communication has been received from the complainant till the issue of registered notice under Ex.A5 by the complainant. The complainant issued a registered notice on 19-04-08 to the opposite party demanding refund of security deposit made by him along with interest @ 6% p.a. for which the opposite party issued reply notice under Ex.A7 stating that the complaint is time barred, since it is filed after a long silence of 9 years.

On perusal of Ex.A1, A5 and A7, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is time barred since he has received the letter dt.06-09-99 under Ex.A1 and kept silent till 2008 and issued a registered notice on 19-04-08. For which the opposite party has replied under Ex.A7 stating that the claim of the complainant is time barred. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This issue is answered accordingly against the complainant.

POINT No.2

In view of the time barred claim by the complainant, the complaint has to be dismissed. However we observe that the opposite party is at liberty to consider the claim of the complainant in the interest of natural justice.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each party shall bear their own costs.

K.Sreedharan,

Priya Nivas,

P.O.Eachur, Kannur Dist. Complainant





1. General Manager,

BSNL, Telecom District,

Thavakkara, Kannur.

2. Dvisional Engineer,

Telecom, BSNL, Kannur 1. Opposite parties

3. Secretary,

Eachur Service co.op.Bank,

Eachur.






O R D E R



This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22, 422/- with cost.

The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder and a regular customer of 3rds opposite party. On13.10.2005 at about 12.30 P.M he had gone to the bank with his Maruthi 800 car having No.Kl.13 H.1729 and parked the car in front of the bank in the compound. After completing the transaction, he came out and to his utter dismay noticed that the car was completely disfigured by paint spilled from the top. When he viewed the surrounding, he noticed that on the top of the bank building some workers were working for the construction of Tower for opposite parties 1 and 2 and it was on account of their utter negligence and carelessness the paint was spilled and fell on the car during their work.


At the time of parking the car there was no sign board or other indication restricting the parking of the vehicle. Immediately the complainant orally made complaint about the incident to 3rd opposite party and also contacted 2nd opposite party through telephone. When contacted the 2nd opposite party apologized for damage and assured that the BSNL would looked into and give compensation for the damage. So the complainant took the car to popular Vehicles they have estimated Rs.12122/- and gave a quotation.


The damage caused to the vehicle is purely on account of the utter negligence and deficiency of service of opposite party. It is the bounden duty of opposite parties to warn customers by restricting the parking of vehicle near such construction. The complainant had sustained Rs.12, 122/- as repair charge, Rs.300/- notice charge and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. This loss was due to the negligent act of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed version. 3rd opposite party also appeared through Adv.A.Abdul Azeez and filed version.

The opposite parties1 and 2 contended that the complaint is not a consumer as per the Act. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They further contended that the work of construction and painting the tower at Eachur was carried out by a contractor who is solely responsible for the alleged loss or damage if any caused to the complainant and hence he should be a party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unaware of the incident till11.11.05. On 11.11.05, the 2nd opposite party told the complainant the above fact that a contractor is constructing the tower. The complainant was also told the name and designation of officer of Indian Mobile Communication Wing, but no steps was taken by the complainant.


So the opposite parties 1 and 2 have no liability. Moreover, the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is not due to the negligence of deficiency of opposite parties 1 and 2. The contractor of BSNL mobile wing has provided 24 hours security at the site and if the paint was spilled accidentally over the complainant’s car, he should have reported the matter to the Security or to any responsible person. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3rd opposite party also filed version and contended that they had leased 30 sq.meter on the roof top of then bank building to BSNL for the construction of 27 sq.meter tower and one room having the area of approximately 150 sq.ft. Accommodating associated equipments as per the agreement dt.16.5.05. As per the agreement, the construction work or the subsequent function is not in any way related to the opposite party. There is sufficient space in the compound to park the vehicle of customer and this opposite party has no reason to warn any customer or to put sign board. The alleged spilling of paint and disfiguration of the car is only due to the negligence of the workers appointed by BSNL. So the bank is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as the owner of the building. So there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2,DW1and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4, C1 and B1 to B3 (2)

Issue Nos. 1 & 2

Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant is not a consumer of them as per consumer protection act. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant has not purchased or hired any service from them. The complaint is filed for compensation for repainting his car which was occurred due to spilling of paint over the complainant’s car bearing No.KL.13.H.1729 on 13.10.05, while he parked his car in front of 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant the paint was spilled over his car due to the negligence of workers working for the construction of BSNL Mobile tower on roof-top of bank’s building. It is true that the complainant has not purchased or availed any service from the opposite party with respect to the subject matter of the complaint. So it is seen that the complainant is not a consumer with respect to opposite parties 1 and 2.


But regarding 3rd opposite party admittedly complainant is a regular customer of 3rd opposite party and Ext.A4 proves that on the date of alleged incident also he has availed the service of 3rd opposite party by paying LIC premium through the bank. So undoubtedly it is clear that the complainant had availed service of 3rd opposite party on 13.10.05 and hence the complainant is a consumer of 3rd opposite party and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

The complainant’s further case is that all the opposite parties are liable for the alleged incident and hence all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. But it is found that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence they have no liability to compensate the complainant. The remaining question is whether the 3rd opposite party has any liability co compensate the complainant. It is true that an establishment must take care of its customers who has been using the premises for their transaction and to provide safety measures to a customer who has entered in the premises for availing their service.



So from this it is seen that the 3rd opposite party had taken much care of its customers. The case of the complainant is that he had parked his car in front of the bank. If it is parked inside the compound, which has roofing, the alleged incident would not have occurred. So it cannot be considered that the 3rd opposite party ought to have taken much care about the car parked outside the compound under open air.


So we cannot attribute negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party by saying that they have to take car all its surroundings like a panchayth or Municipality. So in this case from the available evidence on record, it can be seen that there was no negligent or deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 since he has not availed any service from them. Hence issueNo.1 and 2 found against complainant.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Padala Pavan Kumar,

Rep. by his GPA Holder Sara Devidas,

S/o. S.V.L.Naidu,

R/o.Padalavari Street,

Nagarampalem, Guntur.



C/o. V.Nagaraju, Advocate,

Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant



AND



The General Manager,

B.S.N.L. Telecom Department,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Opposite party









O R D E R




This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,430/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and for costs.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant has applied for new telephone connection in the year 1996 and paid Rs.3000/- as security deposit vide receipt No.6262 dt.04-06-1996 and the opposite party registered the same vide receipt No.18800 dt.22-07-1996. Unfortunately, the opposite party denied the new connection vide its letter dt.06-09-1999 on a pretext that the signature is not tallied. The complainant requested the opposite party to return the security deposit of Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. But the opposite party refused the same.


Then the complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.19-04-08 through his counsel demanding the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.3000/-. The same was received by the opposite party and the opposite party issued reply notice with all false allegations. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for return of amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., from 22-10-1996. Thus, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit, Rs.300/- towards legal expenses, Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,130/- towards interest. In total the complainant claimed Rs.10,430/-.

The opposite party filed its counter affidavit, which is in brief is as follows:

Most of the averments in the complaint are not true. It is submitted by opposite party that for providing new connection to the complainant in the given address, the field staff reported that the signature is not tallied with that of the given signature and a letter was addressed on 06-09-99 to the complainant with a request to communicate reply if any to the customer service center or over phone 248200 during the office hours, if no reply was received within a stipulated period, the name of the complainant has to be deleted from the list and advised to get refund of the deposit.


Since then the organization has not received any communication from the complainant. After a long silence of nine years, the complainant has sent a registered notice to the organization for which a prompt reply was sent intimating that it is a time barred claim and requested not to resort in a court of law for a bad cause of action. Inspite of reply, the complainant has filed this complaint, which is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his contentions made in the complaint reiterating the same. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the letter dt.06-09-99 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the receipt bearing No.18800 issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is the demand notice of opposite party dt.22-10-1996. Ex.A4 is the cash receipt for Rs.3000/-. Ex.A5 is the copy of registered notice addressed to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.A7 is the reply registered notice got issued by opposite party. Ex.A8 is the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Pavan Kumar Padala in favour of Devidas Sara to represent him in the court.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

POINT No.1

It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit for obtaining new telephone connection from the opposite party. As per procedure the opposite party has verified about the complainant at given address, but he was not found and signature is not tallied.


Hence, the opposite party sent a letter under Ex.A1 intimating the complainant that the signature is not tallied and as such the complainant is requested to communicate his reply if any within 14 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A1 for taking further action by the opposite party, and if no reply is received within the stipulated time his name will be deleted from the waiting list records of opposite party and the complainant is advised to get refund of the deposit. The said letter Ex.A1 was issued on 06-09-99 by the opposite party. During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that inspite of number of oral demands made by the complainant for refund of deposit amount, the opposite party has not returned the said amount to the complainant, for which the complainant failed to produce any evidence.


During the course of arguments, the counsel for opposite party submitted that inspite of letter issued by opposite party under Ex.A1 on 06-09-99 no communication has been received from the complainant till the issue of registered notice under Ex.A5 by the complainant. The complainant issued a registered notice on 19-04-08 to the opposite party demanding refund of security deposit made by him along with interest @ 6% p.a. for which the opposite party issued reply notice under Ex.A7 stating that the complaint is time barred, since it is filed after a long silence of 9 years.

On perusal of Ex.A1, A5 and A7, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is time barred since he has received the letter dt.06-09-99 under Ex.A1 and kept silent till 2008 and issued a registered notice on 19-04-08. For which the opposite party has replied under Ex.A7 stating that the claim of the complainant is time barred. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This issue is answered accordingly against the complainant.

CC.61/2006

K.Sreedharan,

Priya Nivas,

P.O.Eachur, Kannur Dist. Complainant





1. General Manager,

BSNL, Telecom District,

Thavakkara, Kannur.

2. Dvisional Engineer,

Telecom, BSNL, Kannur 1. Opposite parties

3. Secretary,

Eachur Service co.op.Bank,

Eachur.




O R D E R



This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22, 422/- with cost.

The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder and a regular customer of 3rds opposite party. On13.10.2005 at about 12.30 P.M he had gone to the bank with his Maruthi 800 car having No.Kl.13 H.1729 and parked the car in front of the bank in the compound. After completing the transaction, he came out and to his utter dismay noticed that the car was completely disfigured by paint spilled from the top. When he viewed the surrounding, he noticed that on the top of the bank building some workers were working for the construction of Tower for opposite parties 1 and 2 and it was on account of their utter negligence and carelessness the paint was spilled and fell on the car during their work.


At the time of parking the car there was no sign board or other indication restricting the parking of the vehicle. Immediately the complainant orally made complaint about the incident to 3rd opposite party and also contacted 2nd opposite party through telephone. When contacted the 2nd opposite party apologized for damage and assured that the BSNL would looked into and give compensation for the damage. So the complainant took the car to popular Vehicles they have estimated Rs.12122/- and gave a quotation.


The damage caused to the vehicle is purely on account of the utter negligence and deficiency of service of opposite party. It is the bounden duty of opposite parties to warn customers by restricting the parking of vehicle near such construction. The complainant had sustained Rs.12, 122/- as repair charge, Rs.300/- notice charge and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. This loss was due to the negligent act of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed version. 3rd opposite party also appeared through Adv.A.Abdul Azeez and filed version.

The opposite parties1 and 2 contended that the complaint is not a consumer as per the Act. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They further contended that the work of construction and painting the tower at Eachur was carried out by a contractor who is solely responsible for the alleged loss or damage if any caused to the complainant and hence he should be a party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unaware of the incident till11.11.05. On 11.11.05, the 2nd opposite party told the complainant the above fact that a contractor is constructing the tower.


The complainant was also told the name and designation of officer of Indian Mobile Communication Wing, but no steps was taken by the complainant. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 have no liability. Moreover, the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is not due to the negligence of deficiency of opposite parties 1 and 2. The contractor of BSNL mobile wing has provided 24 hours security at the site and if the paint was spilled accidentally over the complainant’s car, he should have reported the matter to the Security or to any responsible person. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3rd opposite party also filed version and contended that they had leased 30 sq.meter on the roof top of then bank building to BSNL for the construction of 27 sq.meter tower and one room having the area of approximately 150 sq.ft. Accommodating associated equipments as per the agreement dt.16.5.05. As per the agreement, the construction work or the subsequent function is not in any way related to the opposite party.


There is sufficient space in the compound to park the vehicle of customer and this opposite party has no reason to warn any customer or to put sign board. The alleged spilling of paint and disfiguration of the car is only due to the negligence of the workers appointed by BSNL. So the bank is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as the owner of the building. So there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2,DW1and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4, C1 and B1 to B3 (2)

Issue Nos. 1 & 2

Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant is not a consumer of them as per consumer protection act. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant has not purchased or hired any service from them. The complaint is filed for compensation for repainting his car which was occurred due to spilling of paint over the complainant’s car bearing No.KL.13.H.1729 on 13.10.05, while he parked his car in front of 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant the paint was spilled over his car due to the negligence of workers working for the construction of BSNL Mobile tower on roof-top of bank’s building.


It is true that the complainant has not purchased or availed any service from the opposite party with respect to the subject matter of the complaint. So it is seen that the complainant is not a consumer with respect to opposite parties 1 and 2. But regarding 3rd opposite party admittedly complainant is a regular customer of 3rd opposite party and Ext.A4 proves that on the date of alleged incident also he has availed the service of 3rd opposite party by paying LIC premium through the bank. So undoubtedly it is clear that the complainant had availed service of 3rd opposite party on 13.10.05 and hence the complainant is a consumer of 3rd opposite party and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

The complainant’s further case is that all the opposite parties are liable for the alleged incident and hence all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. But it is found that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence they have no liability to compensate the complainant. The remaining question is whether the 3rd opposite party has any liability co compensate the complainant. It is true that an establishment must take care of its customers who has been using the premises for their transaction and to provide safety measures to a customer who has entered in the premises for availing their service.



The DW2 ie.3rd opposite party deposed that “ Bank sâ property 8 cent BWv. AXn 7 cent covering D*v. Compound \pf-fn car park sN¿m-\p-ff ØeT apgp-h³ roofing BWv. So from this it is seen that the 3rd opposite party had taken much care of its customers. The case of the complainant is that he had parked his car in front of the bank. If it is parked inside the compound, which has roofing, the alleged incident would not have occurred. So it cannot be considered that the 3rd opposite party ought to have taken much care about the car parked outside the compound under open air.


So we cannot attribute negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party by saying that they have to take car all its surroundings like a panchayth or Municipality. So in this case from the available evidence on record, it can be seen that there was no negligent or deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 since he has not availed any service from them. Hence issueNo.1 and 2 found against complainant.

Pavan Kumar,

Rep. by his GPA Holder Sara Devidas,

S/o. S.V.L.Naidu,

R/o.Padalavari Street,

Nagarampalem, Guntur.



C/o. V.Nagaraju, Advocate,

Brodiepet, Guntur. … Complainant



AND



The General Manager,

B.S.N.L. Telecom Department,

Chandramoulinagar,

Guntur. … Opposite party







O R D E R



This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,430/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- for mental agony and for costs.

The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant has applied for new telephone connection in the year 1996 and paid Rs.3000/- as security deposit vide receipt No.6262 dt.04-06-1996 and the opposite party registered the same vide receipt No.18800 dt.22-07-1996. Unfortunately, the opposite party denied the new connection vide its letter dt.06-09-1999 on a pretext that the signature is not tallied. The complainant requested the opposite party to return the security deposit of Rs.3000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. But the opposite party refused the same.


Then the complainant got issued a registered legal notice dt.19-04-08 through his counsel demanding the opposite party to refund the security deposit amount of Rs.3000/-. The same was received by the opposite party and the opposite party issued reply notice with all false allegations.


Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for return of amount along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., from 22-10-1996. Thus, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit, Rs.300/- towards legal expenses, Rs.5000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,130/- towards interest. In total the complainant claimed Rs.10,430/-.

The opposite party filed its counter affidavit, which is in brief is as follows:

Most of the averments in the complaint are not true. It is submitted by opposite party that for providing new connection to the complainant in the given address, the field staff reported that the signature is not tallied with that of the given signature and a letter was addressed on 06-09-99 to the complainant with a request to communicate reply if any to the customer service center or over phone 248200 during the office hours, if no reply was received within a stipulated period, the name of the complainant has to be deleted from the list and advised to get refund of the deposit.


Since then the organization has not received any communication from the complainant. After a long silence of nine years, the complainant has sent a registered notice to the organization for which a prompt reply was sent intimating that it is a time barred claim and requested not to resort in a court of law for a bad cause of action. Inspite of reply, the complainant has filed this complaint, which is not maintainable either in law or on facts. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed.

The complainant filed affidavit in support of his contentions made in the complaint reiterating the same. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A8 are marked. Ex.A1 is the letter dt.06-09-99 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.A2 is the receipt bearing No.18800 issued by opposite party. Ex.A3 is the demand notice of opposite party dt.22-10-1996. Ex.A4 is the cash receipt for Rs.3000/-. Ex.A5 is the copy of registered notice addressed to the opposite party by the complainant. Ex.A6 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.A7 is the reply registered notice got issued by opposite party. Ex.A8 is the copy of General Power of Attorney executed by Pavan Kumar Padala in favour of Devidas Sara to represent him in the court.

Now the points for consideration are that

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

POINT No.1

It is not in dispute that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.3000/- towards security deposit for obtaining new telephone connection from the opposite party. As per procedure the opposite party has verified about the complainant at given address, but he was not found and signature is not tallied. Hence, the opposite party sent a letter under Ex.A1 intimating the complainant that the signature is not tallied and as such the complainant is requested to communicate his reply if any within 14 days from the date of receipt of Ex.A1 for taking further action by the opposite party, and if no reply is received within the stipulated time his name will be deleted from the waiting list records of opposite party and the complainant is advised to get refund of the deposit.


The said letter Ex.A1 was issued on 06-09-99 by the opposite party. During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant submitted that inspite of number of oral demands made by the complainant for refund of deposit amount, the opposite party has not returned the said amount to the complainant, for which the complainant failed to produce any evidence. During the course of arguments, the counsel for opposite party submitted that inspite of letter issued by opposite party under Ex.A1 on 06-09-99 no communication has been received from the complainant till the issue of registered notice under Ex.A5 by the complainant.


The complainant issued a registered notice on 19-04-08 to the opposite party demanding refund of security deposit made by him along with interest @ 6% p.a. for which the opposite party issued reply notice under Ex.A7 stating that the complaint is time barred, since it is filed after a long silence of 9 years.

On perusal of Ex.A1, A5 and A7, it is clear that the claim of the complainant is time barred since he has received the letter dt.06-09-99 under Ex.A1 and kept silent till 2008 and issued a registered notice on 19-04-08. For which the opposite party has replied under Ex.A7 stating that the claim of the complainant is time barred. In the aforesaid circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. This issue is answered accordingly against the complainant.

K.Sreedharan,

Priya Nivas,

P.O.Eachur, Kannur Dist. Complainant





1. General Manager,

BSNL, Telecom District,

Thavakkara, Kannur.

2. Dvisional Engineer,

Telecom, BSNL, Kannur 1. Opposite parties

3. Secretary,

Eachur Service co.op.Bank,

Eachur.





O R D E R



This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.22, 422/- with cost.

The case of the complainant is that he is an account holder and a regular customer of 3rds opposite party. On13.10.2005 at about 12.30 P.M he had gone to the bank with his Maruthi 800 car having No.Kl.13 H.1729 and parked the car in front of the bank in the compound. After completing the transaction, he came out and to his utter dismay noticed that the car was completely disfigured by paint spilled from the top. When he viewed the surrounding, he noticed that on the top of the bank building some workers were working for the construction of Tower for opposite parties 1 and 2 and it was on account of their utter negligence and carelessness the paint was spilled and fell on the car during their work.


At the time of parking the car there was no sign board or other indication restricting the parking of the vehicle. Immediately the complainant orally made complaint about the incident to 3rd opposite party and also contacted 2nd opposite party through telephone. When contacted the 2nd opposite party apologized for damage and assured that the BSNL would looked into and give compensation for the damage. So the complainant took the car to popular Vehicles they have estimated Rs.12122/- and gave a quotation.


The damage caused to the vehicle is purely on account of the utter negligence and deficiency of service of opposite party. It is the bounden duty of opposite parties to warn customers by restricting the parking of vehicle near such construction. The complainant had sustained Rs.12, 122/- as repair charge, Rs.300/- notice charge and Rs.10,000/- as compensation. This loss was due to the negligent act of opposite party. Hence this complaint.

Upon receiving the notice from the Forum opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared and filed version. 3rd opposite party also appeared through Adv.A.Abdul Azeez and filed version.

The opposite parties1 and 2 contended that the complaint is not a consumer as per the Act. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. They further contended that the work of construction and painting the tower at Eachur was carried out by a contractor who is solely responsible for the alleged loss or damage if any caused to the complainant and hence he should be a party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unaware of the incident till11.11.05. On 11.11.05, the 2nd opposite party told the complainant the above fact that a contractor is constructing the tower.


The complainant was also told the name and designation of officer of Indian Mobile Communication Wing, but no steps was taken by the complainant. So the opposite parties 1 and 2 have no liability. Moreover, the damage caused to the vehicle of the complainant is not due to the negligence of deficiency of opposite parties 1 and 2. The contractor of BSNL mobile wing has provided 24 hours security at the site and if the paint was spilled accidentally over the complainant’s car, he should have reported the matter to the Security or to any responsible person. So there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3rd opposite party also filed version and contended that they had leased 30 sq.meter on the roof top of then bank building to BSNL for the construction of 27 sq.meter tower and one room having the area of approximately 150 sq.ft. Accommodating associated equipments as per the agreement dt.16.5.05. As per the agreement, the construction work or the subsequent function is not in any way related to the opposite party.


There is sufficient space in the compound to park the vehicle of customer and this opposite party has no reason to warn any customer or to put sign board. The alleged spilling of paint and disfiguration of the car is only due to the negligence of the workers appointed by BSNL. So the bank is not liable to pay anything to the complainant as the owner of the building. So there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint?

4. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2,DW1and DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4, C1 and B1 to B3 (2)

Issue Nos. 1 & 2

Opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant is not a consumer of them as per consumer protection act. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant has not purchased or hired any service from them. The complaint is filed for compensation for repainting his car which was occurred due to spilling of paint over the complainant’s car bearing No.KL.13.H.1729 on 13.10.05, while he parked his car in front of 3rd opposite party. According to the complainant the paint was spilled over his car due to the negligence of workers working for the construction of BSNL Mobile tower on roof-top of bank’s building. It is true that the complainant has not purchased or availed any service from the opposite party with respect to the subject matter of the complaint.


So it is seen that the complainant is not a consumer with respect to opposite parties 1 and 2. But regarding 3rd opposite party admittedly complainant is a regular customer of 3rd opposite party and Ext.A4 proves that on the date of alleged incident also he has availed the service of 3rd opposite party by paying LIC premium through the bank. So undoubtedly it is clear that the complainant had availed service of 3rd opposite party on 13.10.05 and hence the complainant is a consumer of 3rd opposite party and hence issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

The complainant’s further case is that all the opposite parties are liable for the alleged incident and hence all of them are liable to compensate the complainant. But it is found that the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 and hence they have no liability to compensate the complainant. The remaining question is whether the 3rd opposite party has any liability co compensate the complainant. It is true that an establishment must take care of its customers who has been using the premises for their transaction and to provide safety measures to a customer who has entered in the premises for availing their service.


The DW2 ie.3rd opposite party deposed that “ Bank sâ property 8 cent BWv. AXn 7 cent covering D*v. Compound \pf-fn car park sN¿m-\p-ff ØeT apgp-h³ roofing BWv. So from this it is seen that the 3rd opposite party had taken much care of its customers. The case of the complainant is that he had parked his car in front of the bank. If it is parked inside the compound, which has roofing, the alleged incident would not have occurred. So it cannot be considered that the 3rd opposite party ought to have taken much care about the car parked outside the compound under open air.


So we cannot attribute negligence on the part of the 3rd opposite party by saying that they have to take car all its surroundings like a panchayth or Municipality. So in this case from the available evidence on record, it can be seen that there was no negligent or deficiency of service on the part of 3rd opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any remedy as prayed in the complaint. The complainant is not the consumer of opposite parties 1 and 2 since he has not availed any service from them. Hence issueNo.1 and 2 found against complainant.

I had recharged my mobile with a sum of Rupee 50 through the coupon. When i called the customer care they were first ignoring the matter but when i scolded then the person told that it was fault of the retailer which sold the coupon and the retailer tells that its the fault of the company. the matter is not of Rs 50 but the matter is that these biggies think that they can just fool the people an just go off like that... so i would request youto please guide me how to punch off these people...

Thanking You,,
Sumeet Singh

I am a BSNL customer, my land line (0781-2057214 ) was is not working properly, I want to register a compliant through BSNL Vazhoor division on 17.05.09. Please take necessary action to rectify the compliant at the earliest.

Thanking You,


Yours faithfully,

S.C. CASE NO.: FA/2009/316 DATE: 17.11.2009



DATE OF FILING: -25.08.2009



APPELLANT : 1. Hrishikesh Banik, S/o Late Gopal Chandra Banik,

2. Smt. Bannya Banik, W/o Hrishikesh Banik,

61, Anita Cinema Lane, Post Office, Police &

District-Burdwan, 713101.



RESPONDENTS : 1. Kibriya Khondakar, 61, Anita Cinema Lane,

Post Office, Police & District-Burdwan, 713101.



2. Commercial Officer, BSNL Burdwan Telephone Bhavan,

G.T. Road, Burdwan-713101.



3. Divisional Engineer, Telephone, Burdwan Division,

BSNL, G.T. Road, Burdwan-713101.



BEFORE: HON’BLE JUSTICE : Sri. Aloke Chakrabarti, PRESIDENT.

MEMBER : Sri. A.K. Ray.

MEMBER : Smt. Silpi Majumder.



FOR THE APPELLANT : In Person.

FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1. : Sri. Subrata Ghosh, Advocate.

2 & 3. : Mrs. Juthi Banerjee, Advocate.



-ORDER-



S. Majumder, Member.



This appeal has arisen out of the judgment passed by the District Forum, Burdwan on 31.07.2009, in its case no-116/2007, wherein the Forum below allowing the complaint on contest has directed the BSNL not to disconnect the telephone connection of the PCO in the disputed premises, so long the Complainant is vacated from the premises and so long he makes payment of the rental charge as well as compliance with other rules and regulation of the Telephone Act.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant before the Forum below was that the Complainant has been running tailoring business in the disputed room for a long period where his father Osman Gani was alive. Now he is also running PCO for a period of three years. The OP-3 and 4 are the owners of the disputed room. They have filed an Eviction Suit against his father Osman Gani and the Complainant has also filed a counter case before the Civil Court. The Complainant has been depositing rent for the said disputed room before the Rent Controller. The allegation of the Complainant is that the OP-3 and 4 influenced the OP-1 and 2 to send a notice dated 18.07.2007, threatening to disconnect the telephone connection in the disputed room. Hence the Complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying for direction upon the OP-1 and 2 not to disconnect the telephone connection of the PCO as it is the source of earning his livelihood.

Being aggrieved by the above-mentioned judgment the OP-3 and 4-Appellants have preferred this appeal contending that the Complainant is not known to them and he is a stranger. The father of the Complainant has been evicted from the shop room as he was defaulter and proved defaulter and evicted heir cannot deposit rent legally, so all of his deposits towards rent are illegal and invalid. The Complainant applied for telephone connection without taking their permission and the BSNL has accordingly gave him connection violating their terms and condition i.e. the BSNL did not ask for the current rent receipt and no objection from the land lord. But when the BSNL issued show cause upon him, he took shelter of the District Forum with a view to continue the said illegal connection. As the Complainant did not satisfy his status before the BSNL, he cannot be termed as a consumer of the BSNL.

Upon hearing of the complaint the Forum has opined that a PCO is running by the Complainant at the premises owned by the OP-3 and 4-Appellants. It is an admitted fact that an eviction decree has been passed against the Complainant in respect of the said premises. As the BSNL was threatening by sending notice-stating disconnection of telephone line, the Complainant filed this case praying for an interim order. In my opinion the Forum has correctly restrained the BSNL from disconnecting the telephone connection in the booth situated in the disputed premises. It is true that a subscriber of PCO is not a consumer within the purview of the C.P. Act as this service is for commercial purpose. But in the instant case the Complainant has stated in the complaint petition that he is a consumer under the BSNL as he is running such business i.e. PCO for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment as well as 6-7 of his family members depend upon the income from the said PCO. Therefore in my view the Complainant will not fall under the definition of commercial purpose and hence he is a consumer under the BSNL.

In this respect one judgment has been cited by the Complainant before the Forum below where the Hon’ble National Commission have held that if a person engaged in activity to earn livelihood would not fall under the definition of commercial purpose. (CPJ, 2008, vol-III, page-2005). In the memo of appeal the Appellants have stated that as the Complainant did not satisfy his status before the BSNL, he cannot be termed as a consumer of the BSNL. In this respect I am to say that regarding installation of telephone connection to a subscriber it is the duty of the BSNL authority to collect cogent papers and document from the intending subscriber, in case of failure of collection of the papers BSNL will be held liable. But in this respect any person whether he/she is a landlord of the premises has no authority to interfere with the matters. If an intending consumer does not supply proper papers to the BSNL authority at the time of making application for getting telephone connection, in that respect the BSNL has full authority either not to give connection or to disconnect the same even after installation. This relationship is between the two the subscriber and the BSNL. No person can interfere in the said matter; on the whole he has no authority.

In this case the BSNL did not challenge the status of the Complainant by filing written version before the Ld. Forum below and the Forum below has correctly observed that the OP-3 and 4 have no locus-standi to describe the Complainant not as a consumer. It has been stated by the Appellants that BSNL has accordingly gave him connection violating their terms and condition i.e. the BSNL did not ask for the current rent receipt and no objection from the land lord. In this regard I am of the view that whether the BSNL has violated their rules and regulation or not, no one can interfere in it. In case of violation liability will be cast upon the BSNL, not to an individual. Therefore I cannot support the interference of the Appellants. The Appellants have further stated that in case of eviction consent letter of the landlord is necessary. In this respect the Complainant has relied upon one judgment where the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta has observed that installation of the telephone is a personal right not attached to the premises.

So long the tenant is not evicted from the premises in accordance with due process of law, his right of stay does not come to an end (C.O.No-14485 WP of 1983). In the present case the Complainant is not evicted from the said disputed premises by putting the decree of ejectment in excecution, so the BSNL cannot issue such type of notice upon the Complainant. No case has been made out by the BSNL that telephone charge is due and recoverable from the Complainant. Before this Commission the Ld. Counsel for the BSNL did not advance any argument challenging the status of the Complainant in the said disputed premises. The Complainant did not pray for any cost and compensation from the BSNL, he has only prayed for not to disconnect the telephone lines in the booth. Therefore as the judgment passed by the Forum below does not suffer from any infirmity and material irregularity, I am inclined to affirm the said judgment.

Going by the foregoing discussion it is ordered that the appeal be dismissed on contest without any cost and the judgment passed by the Forum below is hereby affirmed. The office is directed to send down the copy of this judgment to the Forum below and issue the same upon the recorded Advocates/parties free of cost forthwith.