SUNILKUMAR Vs. A.J.THOMAS
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-9-2
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 15,2009

SUNILKUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
A.J.THOMAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.V.VISWANATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER - (1.)THE above appeals are preferred from the common order dated 28th January 2002 passed by CDRF, Kasaragod in OP Nos. 190, 191 and 192/02. The complainant in the said OPs alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/Public Telephone booth owner in collecting service charge of Rs. 2/ - each for the 3 local calls made by the complainant. The opposite party entered appearance and contended that as per the interim order passed by the Hon High Court he was permitted to collect service charge for the local calls. But, the Forum below accepted the case of the complainant regarding deficiency in service in collecting service charge of Rs.2/ - each for the 3 local calls made by the complainant on 20.6.01 and 20.8.01. Thereby, passed the impugned common order directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs. 150/ - each including Rs. 2/ - each towards the service charges collected as compensation. Aggrieved by the said common order the present appeals are preferred.
(2.)WHEN these appeals were taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party. He argued for the position that the opposite party/public telephone booth owner has not committed any deficiency in service by collecting Rs. 2/ - each by way of service charge. It is further argued that the opposite party/booth owner was justified in collecting the service charge by virtue of the interim order dated 20th July 2001 passed by the Hon. High Court of Kerala in CMP No. 19252/01 in OP No. 12052/01. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned common order passed by the forum below.
(3.)THE points that arise for consideration are: -
1. Whether the appellant/opposite party can be justified in realizing the service charge at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per local call?

2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned common order passed by the forum below?

Points 1 and 2: - There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant made 3 local calls from the public telephone booth owned by the appellant/opposite party. The aforesaid 3 local calls were made on 20.6.01 and 20.8.01. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant/opposite party being the public telephone booth owner collected Rs. 2/ - each from the complainant by way of service charge for the 3 local calls made by the complainant. The Forum below considered the orders passed by the Hon. High Court in writ appeals and came to the conclusion that the opposite party/public telephone booth owner committed deficiency in service by collecting service charge of Rs. 2/ - each for the 3 local calls made by the complainant.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.