DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MUCHIPARA, BURDWAN.
D.F.Case No.129/2007
Complainant: Smt.Dally Banerjee,
W/o.Ashutosh Banerjee,
61, Anita Cinema Lane,
P.O., P.S. & Dist.-Burdwan
VERSUS
Opposite Party:1. S.E.D. Telecom, Burdwan,
(EXTL, East), Telephone Exchange,
BSNL Co. Ltd., Burdwan,
Burdwan Telephone Bhavan,
G.T.Road, Burdwan.
2. Divisional Engineer, Telegraph,
Burdwan Division, Bharat Sancher,
Nigam Ltd., Burdwan Teslephone Bhavan,
G.T.Road, Burdwan.
3. Hrisikesh Banik,
S/o.Late-Gopal Chandra Banik,
Anita Cinema Lane,
P.O., P.S., & Dist.-Burdwan.
4. Smt.Bannya Banik,
W/o. Hrisikesh Banik,
Anita Cinema Lane,
P.O., P.S., & Dist.-Burdwan.
5. Ashim Banerjee,
S/o.Manoranjan Banerjee,
At Pilkhana Lane,
P.O., P.S., & Dist.- Burdwan.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Tushar Kanti Paladhi
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jharna Majumder
Hon’ble Member : Sri Ajit Kumar Basu
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate, Ashok Kumar Biswas.
For the Opposite Party No.1: Ld. Advocate, Ahibhusan De
For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Ld. Advocate, Ahibhusan De.
For the Opposite Party No. 3 & 4 : Ld. Advocate, Sukumar Mondal
For the Opposite Party No. 5 : Not appeared
Date of delivery: 18/03/2009
JUDGEMENT
This is a case u/s 12, C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service against O.P. No.1 & 2, Telecom, Burdwan, and restraining them not to interrupt the business of Broadband internet in the disputed premises.
The complainant’s case is that she is running an Internet Cyber Café in the disputed premises with the permission of O.P. No.3 & 4, and along with the tenant O.P. No.5.
O.P. No.3 &4 filed T.S. 100/1996 in the 2nd Court of Civil Junior Div, Burdwan.
O.P. No.1 & 2 disconnected the telephone connection in the disputed premises upon alleged surrender letter by O.P.No. 3&4 on 1st August, 2007.
The complainant submitted an application before O.P. No.1 & 2, on 30.07.07, alleging the said surrender letter as illegal, but O.P. No. 1 & 2 disconnected the Telephone connection.
Hence this case has been filed, praying for restoration of telephone connection.
O.P. No. 3 & 4 contest this case, by filing written objection, describing them as owner of the disputed premises, stating that the complainant, though not tenant, collected forged rent receipt, and was able to get telephone connection.
According to O.P. No. 3 & 4, pro-O.P. No.5, Ashim Banerjee was monthly tenant in respect of the disputed premises.
As Sri Banerjee defaulted in payment of rent since August, 1993, so, T.S.-100/96 was filed against him by O.P. No. 3& 4, praying for eviction. Sri Banerjee filed an application u/s 17(2) WBPT Act, and the Ld. Court was pleased to direct him to deposit the rent in respect of the disputed premises.
Thereafter, Asutosh Banerjee, the husband of the complainant, filed a petition claiming himself as tenant in respect of disputed premises and Ld. Civil Judge rejected the said application. No revision has been filed against such order and order or eviction has been passed against opposite party No.5 in the above mentioned title suit. Opposite party No.1 has preferred an appeal against such order of eviction. The said appeal number has TA 67/08 is pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Burdwan.
Opposite party No. 1 & 2 have also filed written objection stating that the complainant was provided with telephone connection being telephone No.BDN 2569719 by Opposite party No.1 & 2 on 29.04.06 on the basis of the application of the complainant along with supporting document and paper as required for telephone connection. Thereafter, after expire of on year i.e. on 30.06.07., Sri Hrishikesh Banik, opposite party No. 3 being the land lord made a complaint against the complainant before BSNL, alleging that the complainant Doly Banerjee was not his tenant and requesting to disconnect the said telephone. Thereafter, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 by letter dt.04.7.07 requested the complainant to submit no objection certificate of the Land lord as well as current house rent receipt of the land lord in respect of the business premises of the complainant but the complainant did not submit no objection certificate or the current house rent receipt.
The points for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part opposite party No. 1 &2?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to get relieves as preyed for?
FINDINGS WITH REASONS:-
The complainant filed this case, alleging that telephone connection in the disputed premises has been disconnected by opposite party No.1 & 2. Then, on hearing of application of interim order and being satisfied that the alleged letter of surrender was forged, the Forum directed opposite party No. 1 & 2 to restore telephone connection in the disputed premises of the complainant. The Forum passed such temporary mandatory order of restoration of telephone connection upon the application for interim order. Thereafter, opposite party No. 1 & 2, BSNL, and opposite party No. 3 & 4 filed separate written objections, stating there respective cases.
The parties also filed evidence on affidavit and thereafter the forum heard all the parties in full at the time of final hearing. According to the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, opposite party No. 1 & 2 being satisfied with the documents filed by the complainant gave telephone connection to the complainant. The alleged letter of surrender has been observed by the Forum as forged. According to the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, disconnection of telephone of the complainant by BSNL is deficiency in service, as the alleged letter of surrender as observed as forget by this Forum. But this can not be denied that for getting a telephone connection in a premises, a tenant is required to file no objection certificate of land lord and the current rent receipt. It is the case of the BSNL that upon getting a complaint from the land lord, Hrishikesh Banik, the complainant was requested to submit no objection certificate and current rent receipt of the premises where the telephone is installed. It is admitted that the complainant did not submit such document as required by the BSNL. According to the opposite party No. 3 & 4, the rent receipt and no objection certificate filed by the complainant at the time of telephone connection were forged and manufactured. In support of such submission of the complainant, the copy of complaint before C.J.M. has been filed by the complainant in this case. Admittedly, Ashim Banerjee, opposite party No. 5, was the tenant of the disputed premises. On scrutiny of document filed by the opposite party No.4 & 5, the Forum is satisfied that order of eviction has been passed against opposite party No. 5 by Civil Court, Burdwan, and appeal against such order is pending before the appelate court. The complainant has failed to establish her status in the disputed premises.
Moreover, she could not satisfy the BSNL by filing no objection certificate and current rent receipt. Some question of law has been raised in this case. It has been advanced by Ld. Lawyer of opposite party No. 3 & 4 that, as case of is pending before the Civil Court, so the Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this case. But if there is question of deficiency of service, the same may be adjudicated in this Forum. Ld. Lawyer of opposite party No. 1 & 2 draws attention of the Forum to the prayer sought for by the complainant in this case. As regards prayer of ‘Ka’ & ‘Ga’, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant does not press the same at the time of argument. As regards prayer ‘Kh’, there is no bar to pass order of restrain in the case of deficiency in service by the Forum. Ld. Lawyer of opposite party No. 3 & 4 refers a case of National Commission revision petition No.178 of 1992 in vol 4 SC & National Commission consumer law cases 1992-2005 at page 616 where it is held that the Consumer Forum have no authority to give telephone connection to the party
In view of such observation of National Commission and in view of discussion as above the Forum has no other alternate than reject the case of the complainant and also to vacate the order dt.21.08.2007 passed by the Forum.
C.F. paid is sufficient. Hence,
ORDERED
That the case be rejected on contest. The order dt.21.07.07 be vacated. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 will disconnect the telephone connection in the disputed premises of the complainant after expiry of one month from this date of order.
Dictated and corrected by me. (Sri Tushar Kanti Paladhi)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.
(Mrs. Jharna Majumder) (Ajit Kr. Basu)
Member, Member,
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan. D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan.