By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This is a complaint preferred under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant was working in the Opposite Party Company from 1999, on contract basis.  In the year 2020, as he could not get salary due to Covid Pandemic, he was forced to seek other livelihood, leaving from the Opposite Party Company.  The Complainant had taken an internet connection for the educational purpose of his son, which was linked with his land phone number 245100, from the Opposite Party Company.  The monthly rent was 299.  But due to the frequent faults of the land phone, there were obstacles in getting internet for many days from 01.07.2020 to 26.09.2020.  Consequently, the Complainant had booked complaints directly and in the number 198 in the Mananthavady Office of the Opposite Party. But, the Opposite Party Company had not cleared the defects in time, while they delayed to clear the defects as follows:-

            3.  The deficiency in service for clearing the defects from the part of the Opposite Party adversely affected the education of the Complainant’s son.  Hence, in September 2020, the Complainant had applied for the disconnection of his land phone and net connection.  Afterwards, the Opposite Party Company forwarded a bill for Rs.286.94/- for the month of October 2020.  When this matter was directly informed to the Mananthavady Office of the Opposite Party Company, they informed the Complainant that they had disconnected the land phone and internet and also had orally assured the Complainant that the bill amount should be reduced, considering the days for which the Complainant could not use the phone and internet.  Afterwards, no information was there from the Opposite Parties.  Subsequently, in March 2022, an RR Notice was issued by the Opposite Parties seeking the Complainant to remit Rs.1,488/- being the bill amount from 21.10.2020 with 12% interest on the arrear amount from 21.10.2020 and demand notice charge of Rs.85/-.  Then, the Complainant appeared before the Sub Divisional Engineer of the Mananthavady Office of the Opposite Party Company and submitted an application requesting reduction of rent in respect of unused days of internet.  On this request, no action was taken by the Opposite Parties but orally told the Complainant that RR steps should be dropped only on remittance of the amount.  The Complainant had made a deposit of Rs.465/- at the time of taking the phone connection, which is with the Opposite Party Company.  Due to the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party Company, the Complainant was forced to take another net connection for which he had suffered heavy financial loss, mental agony and other losses.  Hence, this complaint with prayers.

1. To direct the Opposite Parties to restrain them from taking RR proceedings.
2. To direct the Opposite Parties to allow reduction in the bill amount in respect of the days for which the Complainant could not use the internet due to the faults of the phone and their irresponsibility
3. To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this complaint and
4. To direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and other financial loss etc..

4.  Commission registered the complaint and summons were issued to the Opposite Parties for appearance.  The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 appeared and filed version.

5.  The contents of joint version filed for Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 are as follows:- 

The Complainant belongs to Mananthavady Telephone Exchange who had taken the landline and broadband connection with No.04935-245100 from BSNL.  It is admitted that the Broadband connection of the Complainant was working smoothly till June 2020 and fell into faulty occasionally due to heavy damages of the Telephone pillar connected to the Complainant since July 2020.  The damage to the Pillar was due to the unexpected flood in the particular area during the alleged period.  Since it was a heavy damage, BSNL had made all the efforts to repair the damages at the level best.  But broadband services could not be put through at par with the requirement for online class.  Further the office of Opposite Parties had taken every sincere effort to resolve the issue of the Complainant but the service of telephone line could not be streamlined fully as it was an irreparable damage.  The matter had been well informed to the Complainant and he was convinced as well.  However the customer had availed BSNL service during the fault free days of the disputed period.  The details mentioned by the customer itself shows that BSNL had attended all the complaints and restored the services at the every possible level.

The details of fault booked by the customer through 198 are listed below:

6.  The disruption in the service was due to natural calamities and was beyond the limit of the BSNL.  Flood during that time made thousands of people homeless and uncountable damages to the entire society. BSNL also faced severe damages and thereby accounted huge revenue losses. Irreparable damages had been incurred to the various worthy assets of BSNL and hence number of customers were also suffered. Though the situation was unfair, the service of the BSNL was remarkable during that time and it was highlighted by different Medias just like all other calamities.  BSNL, being a Telecom service provider, provides the services as per the guidelines of Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and follows the standards and parameters defined by the TRAI for telecom service providers. As per the Standards of Quality of Service of Basic Telephone Service (Wire line) and Cellular Mobile Telephone Service Regulations 2009, bench mark has been defined for the rectification of the fault and compensation has been clearly specified for the faulty services in the form of Rental rebate. The TRAI also permits Service providers, exemption under Force majeure conditions where relaxation in fault rectification parameters is allowed for incidents beyond its control.  The phone of the Complainant was actually disconnected on 26.10.2020 and the amount outstanding at the time of disconnection was Rs.1,488/-. The Billing section of BSNL has contacted the customer several times and informed to make the payment to avoid any RR procedure and also intimated that we are ready to settle the dues under BSNL discount scheme. But the customer ignored the same. Further, a prior intimation was also served to the customer before the RR procedure. Since the Customer had not cleared the dues till June 2021, BSNL was constrained to initiate Revenue Recovery against the customer.  It is reiterated that there is no wilful negligence or run away from the responsibility, but the practicability to restore the service during the alleged period was beyond the limits of the Opposite Party. Hence, it is prayed to instruct the Complainant, who is our esteemed customer to remit the outstanding amount as the process of RR has already been initiated.

7.  Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1.  Opposite Party No.1 was examined but no documents were marked.  The complaint was finally heard on 30.06.2023.

8.  On perusal of the complaint, version, documents marked as Ext.A1 to A4, affidavit of the Complainant, Examination of PW1 and OPW1 and the arguments of both the parties in hearing, Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties…?.
2. Relief and Cost…?

9.  Point No.1:-  It is the admitted fact that the Complainant had a land phone connection and an internet connection with the Opposite Party company.  The internet connection was taken for the educational purpose of the Complainant’s son.  Due to the frequent interruptions in the net connections, the Complainant and his son could not avail the benefit of the internet connection smoothly and regularly which had adversely affected the education of his son.  Though, several complaints were booked by the Complainant in connection with the faults in getting internet, the Opposite Parties made delays in clearing the faults and as such, the Complainant was forced to disconnect the land phone and internet connection with the Opposite Party Company and took another internet connection of an other company which has caused mental agony, financial loss and other hardships to the Complainant.  According to the Complainant, he had applied for disconnection of the telephone and internet with the Opposite Party Company in September 2020.  Even after this, the Opposite Party Company issued a bill for Rs.286.94/- which is evident from Ext.A1 bill issued by the Opposite Party Company for the month of October 2020.  On noticing the matter, the Opposite Party at Mananthavady Office informed the Complainant that they had disconnected the phone and internet and assured him to reduce the amount of the bill considering the days for which the Complainant could not use the internet.  Afterwards, without any information, an RR notice was issued to the Complainant requiring him to remit Rs.1,488/- being the bill amount from 21.10.2020 + 12% interest on it from 21.10.2020 + demand notice charge of Rs.85/-, which is evident from Ext.A2 notice.  Another allegation of the Complainant is that he had a deposit amount of Rs.465/- made at the time of taking the phone connection with the Opposite Party Company which is admitted by the Opposite Parties.  But the contentions of the Opposite Party Company are, by admitting the land phone and internet connection of the Complainant, that  

(1)  the broadband connection was working smoothly till June 2020 and fell into faulty occasionally because of heavy damages of the telephone pillar, unexpected flood causing heavy damage etc and they had tried their level best to cure the defects. The Opposite Party Company had taken sincere effort to resolve the issue of the Complainant.  The Opposite Party contents that the matter was well informed to the Complainant but no evidence is produced in this regard.  They also content that BSNL also faced severe damages and a number of their customers were also suffered.  This contention of the Opposite Party Company does not relieve them from their responsibility and liability. From the complaint and version filed, it is seen that faults and complaints to the connection of the Complainant had occurred on many occasions and the Opposite Party had cleared them afterwards of which some were cleared with much delay.  It is quite natural that being a mechanical and electronic device there are chances of occurring faults or defects and it may be cleared afterwards.  But the main factors to be considered here are (1) The Complainant had applied for disconnection of his land phone and internet in September 2020 but without considering this factor the Opposite Party Company issued Ext.A1 bill amount to Rs.286.94/- for the period 01.10.2020 to 30.10.2020 which cannot be accepted.  (2) Moreover, the Opposite Party Company had not deducted any proportionate amount towards rent rebate in Ext.A1 in respect of the days for which the Complainant could not use the internet due to faults in getting net connection.  (3)  In version, the Opposite Party has deposed the following (a) “]cmXn¡mc\v service In«mXncp¶Xn\memWv XpI ASbv¡mXncn¶Xn\v ImcWw ]dªXv.  CXv ]cntim[n¨t¸mÄ version \n ]dªXv customer   \v  connection sImSp¯ncp¶ pillar  flood aptJ\ shffw IbdnbXn\m BSNL {ian¨n«pw \à coXnbn IW£³ sImSp¡m³ IgnªnÔ.  This is the admission of the Opposite Party Company that they could not provide uninterrupted service/ or satisfactory service to the Complainant. (b).  “Revenue Recovery initiate sNbvXXn\ptijw Ipdª XpIbv¡v hnjbw Settle sN¿p¶Xn\v BSNL Hcp offer \ÂInbncp¶p.  AXv AhÀ \nckn¨p”. No evidence is produced before us by the Opposite Party to substantiate the above contention of the Opposite Party.  So this contention of the Opposite Party is not acceptable. (c) In cross examination, the Opposite Party has deposed that “RR   t\m«okv Abbv¡p¶Xn\v ap³]v ]cmXn¡mc\v t\m«okv Ab¨n«nà F¶v ]dªm icnbÃ.  Ab¨n«ps­¶v ImWn¡m³ tcJ lmPcm¡nbn«nÔ.  So, this oral contention of the Opposite Party Company without substantiating evidence is not acceptable.  (d)  “RR \S]Sn¡v ImcWamb billing account tebv¡v rent rebate \v th­nbpff request h¶n«p­v.  AXv RR Notice initiate sNbvXXn\v tijamWv”.   Even after initiating RR Notice, the Opposite Parties were at liberty to consider the request of the Complainant for rent rebate and settle the matter withdrawing the RR Notice.  This was not seen done by the Opposite Party Company and hence this contention of the Opposite Party Company is unsustainable.  (e)  “Sn Imebfhn  request approve sN¿p¶ authority Rm³ Xs¶ Bbncp¶p”. Even then the Opposite Party did not take any action to settle the matter amicably in good faith.  (f)  “Fault bill  rent rebate \ÂIm³ rule D­v.  2019  rent rebate \ÂInbn«p­v”. Then why the Opposite Party did not try to settle the matter of the Complainant allowing eligible rent rebate?.  This attitude of the Opposite Party Company is not justifiable. (g) “km[mcW tIkpIÄ RR \S]Snbv¡v ap³]mbn adalath  hbv¡mdp­v.  Cu case adalath  h¨Xmbn AdnbnÔ. This statement of the Opposite Party reveals the negative attitude of the Opposite Party Company towards the Complainant. Many other contentions are also raised by the Opposite Party Company. But they are of less importance and immaterial and hence, not discussed here.  At the time of argument, the Opposite Party had admitted that the Complainant was an employee of the BSNL and his performance in duty was remarkable.  In our view, if the Opposite Party Company had taken an earnest effort to settle the matter of the Complainant who was a sincere previous employee of the Opposite Party Company, they could amicably settle the issue to the satisfaction of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Party Company.  Instead they tried to initiate RR Proceedings for a meagre amount resulting in wastage of valuable time of the superior officers of the Company for contesting the case before this Commission.  Anyway, from the above discussion, we see that

1. The Complainant had applied for disconnection of his land phone and internet connection in September 2020.
2. Though it was disconnected by the Opposite Party Company, making much delay, they issued bill even for October 2020 beyond the period of disconnecting even without granting rent rebate for the interrupted and unused days of the connection for Rs.286.94/- as per Ext.A1.
3.   The Opposite Party Company initiated RR proceedings against the Complainant without giving prior notice, which is against natural justice.
4.   Though the Opposite Party Company has admitted that rent rebate is eligible for unused days, they did not grant such benefit to the Complainant.
5.   The Opposite Party Company has failed to issue a prior notice in writing to the Complainant, failed to give an opportunity to the Complainant for a fair personal hearing and settle the matter on merit which is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party Company. 
6. The Opposite Parties have not produced any document to substantiate their contentions. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the bill amount of the Complainant has raised to Rs.1,386.18/- not because of the Complainant but because of the adamant attitude of the Opposite Party Company towards the Complainant, who was a sincere and responsible previous employee of the Opposite Party Company, which is nothing but deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party Company.  So Point No.1 is proved against the Opposite Parties.

            10.  Point No.2:-  As deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is proved against the Opposite Party Company, they are liable to pay compensation and cost to the Complainant.  But the amount of compensation claimed by the Complainant is seen exorbitant.  In our view, the Complainant has the right to get a fair and reasonable amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

            In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed

1. To write off the bill amount due from the Complainant in respect of the land phone and internet connection adjusting the deposit amount of Rs.465/- after getting a written consent in this regard from the Complainant.
2. To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) for mental agony, inconvenience, loss etc to the Complainant and his son
3. To pay cost of this complaint Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only)
4. Needless to say that an interim order in I.A.383/2022 was issued from this Commission restraining the third Opposite Party from taking Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the Petitioner till the disposal of this complaint which is now made absolute.

The above matter shall be settled by the first and second Opposite Parties with the Complainant within one month from the date of submitting the written consent by the Complainant, relinquishing the amount of deposit with the Opposite Party, failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 14^th day of July 2023.

Date of Filing:-29.07.2022.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Sumesh. K.                                       Business.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Babu. V. K.                                       Service, BSNL.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Telephone Bill duplicate for the period of 01.10.2020 to

30.10.2020.

A2.                  Demand Notice.                                                     Dt:14.07.2021.

A3.                  Copy of Right to Information Application.

A4.                  Copy of Reply to Right to Information.                        Dt:25.01.2023.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-