BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd January 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.319/2014
(Admitted on 02.09.2014)
Mr. Monappa Gowda,
S/o. Nagappa Gowda,
Aged about 65 years,
R/at. Mavaji House,
Markanja Post & Village,
Sullia Tq, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)
VERSUS
1. General Manager,
BSNL, Telecom,
Old Kent Road,
Mangalore.
2. S.D.O.T.
B.S.N.L.
Sullia, D.K.
….........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 & No.2: Sri BNK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D:
I. 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The undisputed facts are that opposite party provided land line telephone facility as per telephone No.08257 274288 to complainant for residential purpose under O.Y.T. (Own Your Telephone) scheme connected to Markanja Exchange scheme on complainant paying Rs.8,000/ to opposite party. Since June 2013 telephone of complainant stopped functioning and the problem was intimated to the concerned even letter was addressed on 23.1.2014 to 2nd opposite party to repair the telephone line but it was not repaired and responded and false reply was given. Opposite parties are bound to repair the telephone connection and he is suffering due to non availability of the telephone connection as even mobile signals are not available in the resident located in the remote area. Hence seeks the relief mentioned in the complaint.
II. Opposite party on appearance filed written version mentioning complainants resident is 5.5 Kms. of telephone exchange of which last one kilometre line alignment was working as GI wires erected in jungle area and areca plantation. In June 2013 over head alignment, the jungle is cleared by using JCB by the family member of the complainant resulting in damage in the A.B ports and GI wires were totally damaged. On the complaint to local exchange by complainant restoration was not possible due to non availability of GI wires and other alignments and line materials. The complainant on request by opposite party took WLL connection in the name of his son One Mr. Yashwanth Gowda to his telephone No.08275 201288 which is working without problem. The WLL connection provided to the premises is working satisfactorily without any errors. The allegation that there is no mobile network coverage in his premises is not true. GSM signal is also available in his premises. Detailed discussion was held on 23.1.2014 at complainant premises by SDE Groups, Sullia and he was convinced about non availability of restoration of the land line in fact by order dated 14.8.08 passed in complaint No. 19/2008 by this Forum observation was made that the upon the old connection because when the time changes the Technologies......... line in rural area are always cause for trouble. Opposite party has stopped acquiring materials for the purpose of GI wires hence seeks dismissal.
2. In support of the above complainants Mr. Monappa Gowda filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C7 as detailed in the annexure. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Ramakrishna Bhat (RW1) SDE BSNL (groups) Sullia, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsel for complainant filed notes of arguments. For opposite parties submits as already filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of both parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i): Affirmative
Point No. (ii): Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): There is no in dispute landline telephone connection provided to opposite party was disrupted and despite complaint by the complainant was not restored by opposite party. Thus the complainant the customer of opposite party a consumer and opposite party the service provider and that despite requisition of the consumer opposite party has not restored the service to the complainant is established. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): The ground urged by opposite party are manifold. Firstly, the last one Kms. of 5.5. Kms. from Markanja Exchange GI wires is difficult in terrain and that it was damaged. Opposite parties alleges that the damage was caused by complainant relative which however was not established by opposite party hence rejected.
2. Secondly opposite party alleges BSNL stopping acquiring of materials of restoration of GI lines and as such it is non-available to restore the land line connection to the complainant. But that ground is not justifiable in as much as the opposite party having once agreed to provide the facility to his customer that too on OYT scheme of land line services on the terms imposed at the time of entering the agreement cannot back out on the ground of cost as it is not the case of opposite party that in case of prohibitive cost to opposite party it has to discontinue with the land line services to complainant. Hence the argument on this count of opposite party is also rejected.
3. Nextly it was the claim of opposite party that the complainant on understanding the difficulty in acquiring the materials by opposite party of restoration of landline got WLL service to this residence in the name of his son. But there is no admission by complainant that telephone land line No. 08275 201288 is provided to complainant’s residence at the behest of complainant in the name of his son as an alternative to the present landline telephone service. Hence this ground of opposite party is also rejected.
4. Opposite party has taken a specific stand that earlier in an order passed by this Forum in complaint No.19/2008 the order dated 2008 dismissed the complainant on the ground that this subscribed ‘he cannot stick upon to the old connection because when the time changes the technicality improves and many number of exchanges will come up and it is the duty of the complainant to co operate with the opposite party in the interest of large public’ the Page 9 is no justification for not restoring the telephone line in any case this Forum is not bound by an order passed in an earlier case by this Forum.
5. Last but not least the complainant claimed that even mobile signals are also not available to the remote residence making it imperative for him to approach the outside world through the complaint mentioned landline facility only. Even though the opposite party claim of availability of GSM signals in the premises of complainant it has not been established by affidavit evidence on record. Hence the argument on this count as well is rejected.
6. Now we are left with the claim of complainant for restoration of the land line telephone connection unattended by opposite party the service provider. In our view under the guise of not acquiring the material of BSNL and or of prohibitive opposite party which by accepting Rs.8,000/ from complainant under OYT (Own Your Telephone) scheme cannot escape liability to provide the land line telephone connection to the complainant. The failure on the part of the opposite party to restore the land line telephone connection No. No. 08275 201288 in our view amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
7. As to Point No.3 considering the above it is necessary to direct opposite party to restore land line telephone connection to complainant within the 60 days from the date of communication of the order. Further if opposite party fail to restore the land line telephone connection land line No. No. 08275 201288 within the stipulated period opposite party shall be made liable to pay compensation at Rs.100/ per day till the restoration of the land line telephone connection to the complainant’s residence.
8. As to the claim of complainant for damages/compensation are concerned considering that since June 2013 there was no land line connection to complainant’s residence on 23.1.2014 complainant made a request for restoration in writing which was not complied by opposite party. In the circumstance in our view awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/ towards inconvenience and deficiency caused to complainant and awarding cost of the litigation and fixing a sum of Rs.5,000/ as advocate fee in our view is justified.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with cost. Opposite party is directed to restore land line telephone line connection No.08275 201288 to complainant’s residence mentioned in the complaint within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. On failure of opposite party to comply opposite party shall pay compensation at Rs.100/ (Rupee One hundred only) per day to complainant till restoration of the land line telephone connection to the complainant’s residence.
2. Opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation to complainant.
3. Advocate fee fixed at Rs. 5,000/ (Rupees Five thousand only).
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 23rd 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. Monappa Gowda
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 04.09.1997: Original Demand Note and Receipt issued by the 2nd O.P
Ex.C2: 23.01.2014: O/c of the complaint given to 2nd O.P
Ex.C3: 01.02.2014: Reply of 2nd O.P
Ex.C4: 06.02.2014: O/c. Of the complaint given to 1st O.P
Ex.C5: 06.02.2014: Postal Receipt
Ex.C6: 08.11.2013: Original bill
Ex.C7: 08.11.2013: Original Receipt
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Ramakrishna Bhat, SDE BSNL (groups) Sullia,
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Nil
Dated: 23.01.2017 PRESIDENT
