This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for providing Broadband connection service properly and for compensation for failure of Broadband connection and irregular services causing financial loss to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.

The case of the complainant in brief is that his father Shri Shanti Gopal Saha has BSNL Landline Connection with Broadband facility at number 03523-221258 and Customer ID 3003121196. For the last three months prior to filing of this case he is facing various difficulties in the telephone services. He informed Hemtabad Telephone Exchange for redressal and having not satisfied again informed higher authority District Head Telephone Exchange at Raiganj. But the problems were not solved. The Landline connection and Broadband facilities could not properly be used. The bandwidth speed was to be provided with 512kbps, but he was receiving only 128kbps. The complainant was unable to use the Broadband facilities with full satisfaction. However, Hemtabad Telephone Exchange informed him that the problem was due to the non-functioning of Battery set of Hemtabad Telephone Exchange. As the complainant was suffering for such poor and irregular Broadband services and the O.P. failed to redress the matter, he has no other alternative but to file this case before this Forum.

O.P. No.2, District Head Telephone Exchange, Uttar Dinajpur on behalf of BSNL appeared and contested the case by filing written version. O.P. No.1 Hemtabad Telephone Exchange did not contest the case in spite of receiving notice. Therefore the case is heard exparte against O.P. No.1.

O.P. No.2 assailed the complaint stating in the written version specifically that complainant is not a consumer of O.P./ BSNL and therefore is not entitled to any relief under the Act. O.P. denied that complainant informed alleging the irregular and improper service to the office of the O.P. or that complainant was informed about the defect in the Battery of Hemtabad Telephone Exchange etc. O.P. specifically stated that the said telephone connection with internet facilities in the name of father of complainant was for Rs.650/- PM revenue and O.P. provided Broadband service, which he is entitled to. That the problem arose in the last week of April, 2015, when the Battery Set (Alternative Power Supply) of Hemtabad Telephone Exchange was  stolen by miscreants. Thereafter, following all official procedure another Battery was installed in its place which took some time. The service was again provided from August, 2015. The Broadband service was very regular and proper but due to load shading in the electric supply, the Broadband service is affected in the natural course but for limited interval only. Otherwise there was no irregularity or negligence in providing Broadband services. That the complainant has no locus-stand-I to file the complaint petition. Therefore O.P. prays for dismissal of this complaint.

To establish the case, complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him as P.W.-1 with some documents. He was cross examined by the O.P., who did not adduce any evidence.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

P.W.-1 in his examination in chief deposed that his father has the BSNL Landline with Broadband connection, but they are facing trouble with the services, specifically, during load shading. That he was informed by O.P. No.1 about the defect in the Battery of the Exchange. That he informed the higher authority of BSNL for redressal, but with no fruitful result. That he was suffering financial loss for deficiency and defective services. He submitted documents like telephone bill for the month of July, 2015, documents like complaint to the Grievance Management with acknowledgment and assurance of giving reply, copy of letter to the JTO by the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Uttar Dinajpur R.O. regarding complaint.

In cross examination, P.W.1 admitted that the said telephone with Broadband connection installed in the name of his father, Shanti Gopal Saha and not in his name. That he has no knowledge about the theft of the Battery of Hemtabad Telephone Exchange in April, 2015 and further installation of another Battery in its place in August, 2015.

From the evidence on record and documents filed by the parties, this Forum finds that petitioner admitted that the said telephone No.03523-221258 with Rural Unlimited Broadband Plan @ Rs.650/- PM was installed in the name of Shri Shanti Gopal Saha, the father of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not able to prove that he is a consumer under O.P./ BSNL, in any way, U/s 2 (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complainant did not deny that there was a theft of Battery in the Hemtabad Telephone Exchange and the services were affected in that area to all the customers of BSNL from April, 2015 to August, 2015 till installation of another Battery (Alternative Power Supply) in its place. The deficiency in service of O.P. for that reason does not entitle the complainant to seek relief from this Forum as he is not a consumer directly under the O.P./ BSNL. Therefore the case fails.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence it is,

ORDERED

That the case being No.CC-58/2015 is dismissed on contest against O.P. No. 2 and dismissed exparte against O.P. No.1.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.