BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE

Dated this the 4^th January 2017

PRESENT

  SRI  VISHWESHWARA BHAT D     : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

  SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR                   : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDERS IN

C.C.No.426/2014

(Admitted on 10.11.2014)

Mr. Reymond D Souza,

S/o late Ignatius D Souza,

Residing at D.No Al.1.82,

Darada Hithlu,

Kudripadavu P.O, Elinje Village,

Mangalore Taluk, 574227.

                                                                      ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri KSR)

VERSUS

1. The Officer,

    Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

    Sub Divisional Engineer (groups)

    Telephone,

    Kinnigoli   574150,

    Mangalore District.

2. The General Manager,

    Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

    D.K. Telcom District,

    Mangalore  575001.

                                                                       …......OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite parties No.1 & No.2: Sri BNK)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:

I.       1. The above complaints filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the same complainant against same opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

     The complainants claim he obtained landline Telephone connection No.2295711 from opposite party in the year 2011.   Till September 2012 without any interruption it was working but trouble started thereafter and the connection got disconnected intermittently being got disconnected and in September 2013 it stopped working completely.  The concerned telephone exchange mentioned restoration on making oral promises, but did not comply restoration of the telephone line.  Opposite party No.1 in a letter sent to complainant’s son informed that it is necessary to lay huge quantity of underground cables to restore the line.  And necessary request was made to sanction subsequently a letter dated 12.5.2014 opposite party No.1 informed that it is not possible to give connection through UG/OH cable.   The allegations of repudiated theft of wires absolutely are all false.  Contending that the opposite party cannot disconnect the telephone landline seeks restoration of the said telephone connection No.2295711 and damages and cost against opposite party.

II.     Opposite party filed detailed written version admit telephone connection given to complainant in 2001 under O.Y.T provision and about intermittently disconnection of the line since September 2013 and that present telephone landline disconnected is also admitted.  Closing of the telephone line and letter sent to the son are all not disputed.  Since 2001 connection to complainant’s house there was no complaint of theft of cables till 2013.  The complainant has obtained that service through made exchange with no. 2295711 which is working satisfactorily and the allegation of not working is not correct.  The complainant has not availed channel available in BSNL with Adalat, facilities under Telegraph Act 7 B for Redressal of the grievance.  The WLL connection was provided on the request as per the letter, opposite party has right at any time to disconnection from many exchanges to which it is connected.  No reasons are assigned to refuse for the WLL connection and for insisting of land line connection.  Procumbent of the line matter has stopped by BNSL with restoration is technically not feasible.  Hence seeks dismissal.

2.     In support of the above complainant Mr. Raymond DSouza filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents marked Ex.C1 to C2 detailed in the annexure. On behalf of the opposite parties have not filed affidavit evidence.

In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the other reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

      We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:         

               Point No. (i): Affirmative

              Point No. (ii): Affirmative

              Point No.(iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

IV.   POINTS No. (i):  The complainant is a consumer and obtained landline telephone connection from opposite parties admitted by opposite party the service provider that the telephone connection given to complainant No. 2295711 is disconnected since 2014 as mentioned is also admitted by opposite party.  The claim of complainant that he is entitled for restoration of the line is disputed by opposite party.  Refusal to restore the land line by opposite party is on the ground that it is technically not feasible.  Thus there is a dispute between the parties namely the consumer complainant and the opposite party is the service provider. Hence we answer Point.1 in the affirmative.

POINTS No.(ii): That the telephone connection provided to complainant in the year 2001 was intermittently disconnected since September 2013 and ultimately disconnected with effect from 18.5.2014 is an admitted fact by opposite parties.  The reason assigned by opposite party the complainant had obtained WLL connection and that he cannot be insist for restoring the landline connection as it is not technically feasible are admitted facts.  In such circumstance the learned counsel for complainant pointed out to a reported judgement in IV (2004) CPJ 680 Principal General Manager, Telephones vs. S. Bhupinder Singh Nanda and Ors wherein it is held:

Consumer protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Telephone Non functional Underground cable stolen O.P duty bound to replace stolen cable and restore telephone facility   Deficiency in service proved Compensation granted.

2.     Similarly in the respect of forcing complainant consumer to adopt another connection the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata IV (2009) CPJ 485 Mr. P.K. Chattopadhyay & Mr. S. Coari, Members Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Asim Bhatacharya S.C. Case No. FA/09/157 Decided on 13.7.2009 in the matter held:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(g) Telecom Connection disrupted Land telephone facilities taken by complainant from O.Ps.Frequent disruptions in connection and non maintenance of telephone line alleged Connection closed by O.Ps. arbitrarily Deficiency in services alleged Complaint allowed O.P. detected to restore telephone line Compensation and costs awarded Hence appeal  Contention, 4 Kms. Of overhead line passes through a dense forest Frequent theft of overhead telephone line at the instance of some miscreants No fault on part of O.Ps.Complainant requested to convert telephone line into WLL connection for better services, same not accepted by complainant Contentions rejected A consumer cannot be forced to adopt another connection when there was no bona fide reason to stop the existing land line connection No steps taken by O.Ps. to cure the problem Deficiency in services proved Order upheld No interference required.

3.     However the learned counsel for opposite party wanted us to believe in view of rule 413 and 418 argued that under these rules the opposite parties have right to disconnect the telephone connection rule 413 and 418 relied upon read thus:

413. All services subject to rules: All telephone connections and other similar services provided or authorised by the Department shall, unless governed by a separate contract, be subject to the conditions set forth in these rules. 418. Charge of telephone number and exchange The Telegraph Authority shall have the right at any time to disconnect any exchange line from the exchange to which it is connected and connect it to any other Departmental Exchange and also to alter the telephone number allotted to the subscriber or the name of the exchange to which it is connected.  The Telegraph Authority shall have the right to revise the rental and other charges payable in consequence of the alteration.

4.     However in the first place even as mentioned by learned counsel in the list of document mentions these rules as extract of rule in the Indian Telegraph Act.  But the opponents of the present case are not authorities under the Indian Telegraph Act but authorities of BSNL limited a service provider. Hence in our consider view the argument on this connection and shelter of opposite party in rules 413 and 418 is unjustified and are rejected.  Thus we are left with the case laws cited by the learned counsel for complainant which shall in our view are guiding factor.  In circumstances of present nature restoration of telephone line irrespective of cause fact or feasibility shall be ordered.  As such the present case is being identical to the reported cases referred earlier we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in providing the landline connection by disconnecting the telephone line to the no.2295711 to complainant without his consent.  Hence we answer point No. 2 in the affirmative.

5.     As to the claim of compensation due to disconnection the claim of telephone line connection against opposite parties shall directed to restore the disconnected telephone landline to his residence with No. 2295711 and shall also pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/ for hardship suffered by complainant and shall also pay cost of litigation and Advocate fee fixed at Rs.5000/

POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order

ORDER

     The complaint is allowed with cost.  The opposite parties are directed to restore the telephone line connection to complainants’ residence with telephone number No. 2295711 within 60 days from the date of this order.

2.     Opposite parties shall also pay Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) to complainant as compensation.

3.      Advocate fee fixed Rs.5000/ (Rupees Five thousand only).  

4.     If opposite parties fails to restore the land line telephone line connection within 60 days opposite parties shall pay compensation fixed at Rs.100/ (Rupees One hundred only) per day to  complainant until such time the telephone connection is restored to the complainant.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 8 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 4^th January 2017)

             MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

 (SRI  T.C. RAJASHEKAR)             (SRI  VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                D.K. District Consumer Forum

 Additional Bench, Mangalore                  Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Raymond DSouza

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.C1: Letter of the 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ex.C2: Copies of e-mail sent by the complainant to opposite party.            

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

 Nil 

Dated: 04.01.2017                                    PRESIDENT