BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 2nd March 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.204/2014
(Admitted on 23.06.2014)
Mr. Venkatramana Bhat,
S/o K. Rama Bhat,
R/o Kattathila House, Salethur Village,
Bantwal Taluk.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri VR)
VERSUS
1. Telecom Officer,
Manchi Telecom office,
Manchi,
Bantwal Taluk.
2. Deputy General Manager,
Telecom House, Pandeshwara,
Mangalore.
3. Deputy Engineer,
Telecome,
B.C. Road,
Bantwal Taluk.
…..........OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1, No.2 & No.3: 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 complainants against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The case alleged is the complainant for a long time subscriber of land line connection No.08255.276718 is not working since last 11 months. Despite giving complaint orally several times and in written complaint on 20.8.2013 opposite party has not taken any initiative/ rectify mistake/defects restore the mistakes/defects opposite parties has not complied. Even legal notice issued on 16.3.14 had no desired effect. Hence alleging deficiency in service, seeks the relief claimed in the complaint.
II. Opposite party on entering appearance filed written version contesting the connection to complainants residence was out of order due to underground cable fault as 20 pairs of underground cable was completely damaged by water pipe line workers about 1.1 K.M. In spite of sever attempts to attend the underground cable could not be set right and this was intimated to complainant by letter dated 4.10.2013 and offered WLL connection which was not opted by complainant. The complainant had given consent letter for call diversion by letter dated 20.8.2013 and the facility was extended to him on 24.8.2013 resulting in higher charges to the mobile. Opposite parties have not replied to the legal notice is not correct. Best possible efforts were made to provide service to the complainant and WLL phone connection with interruption free service. BSNL in no way responsible for the loss caused to the customer as there is no lapse on his part. The remedy provided under section 7-B of Indian Telegraph Act is to appoint an arbitrator of Central Government specifically for determination of disputes or generally determine under that as laid down by the Apex Court Civil Appeal No.7687 of 2004. Hence seeks dismissal of the complaint.
2. In support of the above complainant Mr. K. Venkataramma Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C3 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Krishnananda Adiga (RW1) S.D.E. BSNL, also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.R1 to R4 as detailed in the annexure here below.
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 argument. Opposite parties not filed notes of argument. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the 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): The complainant as a consumer and opposite party as service provider of landline connection to complainant claim and also disruption in the service to the landline connection is admitted. But the restoration of the landline connection i.e. deficiency in service is not compiled by opposite party and opposite party contests the claim as opposite party is not responsibility for the fault. Hence there is live dispute between the parties as contemplated under section 2 (1) (e) of the C P Act. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (ii): The only ground urged by opposite party in disrupting of the landline connection is blaming of laying water pipe line and opposite party is not responsible for this. It is to be noted if any authority including water pipe line laying authorities of other department cause damage to underground cable to the complainant’s landline connection the problem has to be setright by opposite party the service provider with such of the damage to the land line. On that count opposite party cannot hold the complainant responsible and cause disruption in providing to the land line service to the complainant.
2. Hence we are of the view opposite party cannot escape from liability to restore the land line connection to the complainant in respective of what complainant is agree or not for WLL facility and of mobile connection.
3. The only other defense taken by opposite party is a law laid down by the Apex Court in the reported judgment in Civil appeal No. 7687 of 2004 is concerned, it relates to the authorities under Indian Telegraph Act. Opposite party being a public limit company cannot claim to be authority under Indian Telegraph Act. Hence we are of the view the law laid down in Indian Telegraph Act is not applicable to the case on hand.
4. As seen from the Ex.R4 the reply to the notice the bills paid received by the complainant in respect of complaint mentioned in the mobile line connection in call diversion facility as per his request. In any case this only goes to show the disrupted land line connection is not restored. Hence it is a fit case to direct opposite party to restore the land line telephone connection to the residence of complainant No.08255.276718 in respect of the compensation claimed by complainant in our view directing opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/ including cost of the complaint is just and proper and advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/. Hence we answer point No.2 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with cost. Opposite party is directed to restore landline connection to the complainant No. 08255.276718 within 90 days from the date of receipt of this order.
2. Opposite party shall also pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to complainant.
3. Advocate fee fixed at Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only).
4. In case opposite party fails to restore the land line connection within stipulated time from this order opposite party shall pay damages to complainant at Rs.100/- (Rupee One Hundred only) per day.
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 6 directly typed by steno on computer system to the dictation of President revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 2nd March 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (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. K. Venkataramma Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: Lawyers Regd. Notice
Ex.C1(a)
Ex.C1(b)
Ex.C1(c): Acknowledgments
Ex.C2: Complaint dated 20.08.2013
Ex.C3: Phone Bills (2 in Nos)
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 Mr. Krishnananda Adiga (RW1) S.D.E., BSNL
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
Ex.R1: Letter dated 04.10.2013 to complainant to opposite party for WLL (Wireless Loop) connection
Ex.R2: Consent letter dated 20.08.2013 given by complainant for Call diversion facility
Ex.R3: Letter regarding Rental rebate from 7.7.2013 to 30.06.2014
Ex.R4: Reply notice dated 06.06.2014 by opposite party.
Dated: 2.03.2017 PRESIDENT
