The instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is at the behest of the Opposite Parties to impeach the Final Order/Judgement dated 31.07.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No. 183/2013.   By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent under Section 12 of the Act on contest with the direction upon the Opposite Parties/Appellants to provide the telephone connection and internet connection of the complainants/respondents within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order and not to generate bills for the period when telephone connection and internet/broad band connection of the complainants was out of order.  In the event of failure, the opposite parties/appellants to pay cost of Rs.50/- for each day’s delay.

          The Respondent herein being Complainant lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum asserting that one telephone was installed in his residence on 05.09.1998.  Subsequently, considering the urgency for education of his son, a broad band/internet connection was installed on 22.05.2009.  The complainant has stated that he was going on paying the bills regularly.  However, on 09.03.2013 the said connection of broad band/internet was stopped for which the educational of prospect of his son was hampered.  On 29.06.2013 the complainant made a representation to the BSNL and in this regard, he received a letter on 11.07.2013 wherein it has been intimated to him that due to underground cable damage and cut off  several places part by part in the area, the line could not be restored.  In this regard, all the requests and persuasions of the complainant went in vain.  Hence, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of OPs/appellants and prayed for a direction for reconnection of services, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, punitive damages etc.

          The Appellants/OPs by filing a written version have stated that they duly intimated the complainant that due to underground cable damage in the area of the complainant , it is not possible to restore the landline and it was suggested to him that as per Departmental norms, the complainant was requested to take the pre-paid WLL and he was willing to take the pre-paid WLL.  The OPs have categorically stated that it was not possible to restore the broadband connection due to work organised by Government and Public Health Engineering Department to supply the water connection to the village people.

          After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with the direction upon the OPs, as indicated above.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the OPs have come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          I have seen the materials on record including the impugned final order and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

          Having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties and scrutiny of the record, it would reveal that the respondent got a telephone connection under Calcutta Telecom District from the appellants under OYT(G) Scheme effected on 05.09.1998.  It is not in dispute that the respondent was going on paying the bills regularly.  On 22.05.2009 one broadband/internet connection was given to the respondent on his application.  However, the said broadband/internet connection was stopped functioning from 09.03.2013.

          It also transpires that on 29.06.2013 for the first time, the respondent made a representation to the General Manager (BP & IT), at Kolkata where the respondent prayed for reconnection/resumption of both the telephone as well as broadband connection.  In this regard, the complainant/respondent was duly intimated by the appellants that due to underground cable damage and cut off several places part by part in the area, the landline cannot be restored and the respondent was suggested or requested to take pre-paid WLL.

          Despite the same, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum on the allegation of deficiency in services on the part of appellant.  In this regard, it may be recorded that due to development of village water connection for the village people, one scheme has been floated by the Government and huge number of big size of water pipe line has been installed underground and as such and as such landline connection of the area has been cut off at different places of the area.

          The Ld. District Forum did not discuss as to why the OPs/appellants will be considered as deficient in rendering services in accordance with Section 2(1)(g) read with Section 2(1)(o) of the Act.  On the contrary, the Ld. District Forum has observed thus –

          “This Forum after hearing the agents on behalf of the parties and perusing the case records and the documents are in the opinion that OPs are not fully responsible for the suffering of the complainant.  Due to unprecedented cause the disruption of line took place and the OP may not cause the obstruction of installing pipe line for supplying water to the poor people of the society.   The supply of the water is the basic needs of the poor people which are organised by the Government so the complainant being a sensible and responsible citizen should afford the suffering for the cause of people in rem.  The complaint should have availed alternate means to mitigate his needs in time”.

          The above observation of the Ld. District Forum does not indicate any deficiency on the part of OPs/appellants.  However, the Ld. District Forum abruptly came to the conclusion that the complainant could prove his case and proceeded to pass the order impugned.

          Needless to say, reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless.  Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity.  Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to challenge before a Higher Forum.

          Considering the above, I am of the view that when the Ld. District Forum did not assign any reason whatsoever as to how the OPs will be considered as deficient despite the explanation advanced by them and further the impugned order is a non-speaking one to that effect, the matter is required to be remitted on remand for a decision afresh.

          For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest.  However, there will be no order as to costs.

          The impugned order is hereby set aside.

          The case is remitted on remand with a request upon the Ld. District Forum to decide and dispose of the complaint afresh after hearing the parties by a speaking order with a clear observation whether the OPs/appellants were deficient in rendering services towards the complainant/respondent.

          The parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Forum on 15.11.2018 and on that date, the Ld. District Forum is requested to fix a date for final hearing and to make all endeavours to dispose of the complaint by a speaking order within December, 2018.

          The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hooghly at Chinsurah for information.