Area Manager North East V/S Deepa Jain - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/1878

Deepa Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Area Manager North East - Opp.Party(s)

14 Nov 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/1878

Deepa Jain						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Area Manager North East General Manager BSNL						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 14th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1878/2008 COMPLAINANT Deepa Jain, Residing at No. SH4/36, DRDO Township Ph-2, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Area Manager (North East) BSNL, BGTD, No.5, Maruthi Complex, Papayya Reddy Layout, 9th B Main, Banaswadi Main Road, Bangalore. 2. Pr. General Manager, BSNL, Bangalore Telecom District, Telephone House, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K. Prakash Rao) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of the OP with regard to landline bearing No. 28530896 accompanied with a broadband service. Unfortunately OP did not extend the said broadband service evenafter the lapse of 10 months. Most of the times landline was dead OP has not attended to the complaints. Though the said landline was not in use, there was an excessive billing. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to activate the said landline and provide the broadband connection time and again, went in futile. The brother-in-law of the complainant was mainly depending on the said broadband to promote his education including the complainant and her husband to promote their business. Because of the carelessness and hostile attitude of OP they are put to greater hardship and prejudice. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is contended by the OP that they have to follow certain procedures with regard to installation of modem extending broadband service to the landline, hence there is some delay. As and when they received the complaint from the complainant they deputed their staff to attend to the said complaint, but most of the time the door was locked. The number of days when the said phone was dead, rebate is given. The other allegations are false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP got filed the affidavits of its officers namely RW.1 to RW.4 and served the interrogatories to the complainant, unfortunately complainant has not answered the same. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. The fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP to her landline No. 28530896 is not at dispute. Complainant wanted to have the broadband service. It is specifically contended by the OP that the connection of the broadband is subjected to availability of the port and ancillary instrument with regard to the area wherein complainant is residing, that possibility cannot be ruled out. It is alleged by the complainant that OP took its own sweat time of 10 months in extending the broadband facility. Though modem was given it was not installed by OP, but still they claimed the service charges and most of the time landline was dead, it was not attended to inspite of the repeated complaints made by her. On the other hand OP has contended that it has allowed the rebate of Rs.1,530/- when the telephone went out of order. In addition to that it has also waived the installation charges of the broadband connection. 7. The allegations of the complainant that after she shifted her flat in the said apartment to some other floor OP failed to shift the said telephone is denied by the OP. According to OP the said telephone was shifted on 26.08.2008, there appears to be some transparency on the part of the OP. Why complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge regarding the waiver of the said charges, rebate, shifting of telephone, etc., are not known. 8. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. To substantiate their defence that as and when they received the complaint from the complainant they deputed their staff to attend the said complaints, but as the door was locked they are unable to rectify the defect. The evidence of RW.1 to 4 speaks to the said fact. OP served certain interrogatories to the complainant to ascertain the truth about the allegations, unfortunately complainant has not answered the said interrogatories and questions. That means to say whatever the evidence that is given by RW.1 to 4 is not challenged. On the other hand the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless and far from truth. Under such circumstances we find there is no proof of actual deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 14th NOVEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 1878/2008 COMPLAINANT Deepa Jain, Residing at No. SH4/36, DRDO Township Ph-2, C.V. Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560 093. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Area Manager (North East) BSNL, BGTD, No.5, Maruthi Complex, Papayya Reddy Layout, 9th B Main, Banaswadi Main Road, Bangalore. 2. Pr. General Manager, BSNL, Bangalore Telecom District, Telephone House, Rajbhavan Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K. Prakash Rao) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant availed the services of the OP with regard to landline bearing No. 28530896 accompanied with a broadband service. Unfortunately OP did not extend the said broadband service evenafter the lapse of 10 months. Most of the times landline was dead OP has not attended to the complaints. Though the said landline was not in use, there was an excessive billing. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to activate the said landline and provide the broadband connection time and again, went in futile. The brother-in-law of the complainant was mainly depending on the said broadband to promote his education including the complainant and her husband to promote their business. Because of the carelessness and hostile attitude of OP they are put to greater hardship and prejudice. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is contended by the OP that they have to follow certain procedures with regard to installation of modem extending broadband service to the landline, hence there is some delay. As and when they received the complaint from the complainant they deputed their staff to attend to the said complaint, but most of the time the door was locked. The number of days when the said phone was dead, rebate is given. The other allegations are false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP got filed the affidavits of its officers namely RW.1 to RW.4 and served the interrogatories to the complainant, unfortunately complainant has not answered the same. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. The fact that the complainant availed the services of the OP to her landline No. 28530896 is not at dispute. Complainant wanted to have the broadband service. It is specifically contended by the OP that the connection of the broadband is subjected to availability of the port and ancillary instrument with regard to the area wherein complainant is residing, that possibility cannot be ruled out. It is alleged by the complainant that OP took its own sweat time of 10 months in extending the broadband facility. Though modem was given it was not installed by OP, but still they claimed the service charges and most of the time landline was dead, it was not attended to inspite of the repeated complaints made by her. On the other hand OP has contended that it has allowed the rebate of Rs.1,530/- when the telephone went out of order. In addition to that it has also waived the installation charges of the broadband connection. 7. The allegations of the complainant that after she shifted her flat in the said apartment to some other floor OP failed to shift the said telephone is denied by the OP. According to OP the said telephone was shifted on 26.08.2008, there appears to be some transparency on the part of the OP. Why complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within her knowledge regarding the waiver of the said charges, rebate, shifting of telephone, etc., are not known. 8. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. To substantiate their defence that as and when they received the complaint from the complainant they deputed their staff to attend the said complaints, but as the door was locked they are unable to rectify the defect. The evidence of RW.1 to 4 speaks to the said fact. OP served certain interrogatories to the complainant to ascertain the truth about the allegations, unfortunately complainant has not answered the said interrogatories and questions. That means to say whatever the evidence that is given by RW.1 to 4 is not challenged. On the other hand the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless and far from truth. Under such circumstances we find there is no proof of actual deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of November 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.