BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 627 of 2015

Date of Institution: 16.10.2015

Date of Decision: 26.04.2016  

Talwinder Singh, Advocate, resident of Kothi No.7, Old Jail Road, Amritsar. 

Complainant

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), through its General Manager (Telephone), Albert Road, Opposite Aay Kay Hotel, Amritsar.  

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Aman Kumar Sharma, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party: Sh. J.S.Pannu, Advocate

Coram

Sh.S.S.Panesar, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member  

Order dictated by:

Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.

1. Sh.Talwinder Singh has brought the instant complaint under section 11, 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  he has been using the BSNL Landline Connection bearing No. 01832566165 for the last more than 10 years for profession use installed in his office situated at 39/A, District & Session Courts, Amritsar. The complainant is regularly paying the bills as and when issued  by Opposite Party without any interruption and no amount of any sort  is due against the complainant, hence the complainant falls  within the definition of consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant has locus standi to file the present complaint and invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The above said telephone oftenly remains unserviceable due to poor wiring of the Opposite Party and now the said telephone is unserviceable for the last more than six months. The complainant had made more than 100 complaints to the officers of the Opposite Party, but till date the telephone remains unserviceable. The complainant had suffered a loss of more than Rs.5 lacs due to non functioning of the above said telephone. The act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service, unfair  trade practice as well as  gross negligence which has caused mental pain, agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled  to claim compensation of Rs.1 lac from the Opposite Party. Hence this complaint.        
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte. However, later on during the proceedings on 2.12.2015 Sh.Alok Kaul, AGM (Legal) put in appearance on behalf of Opposite Party.    
3. In his bid  to prove the case, complainant made in the witness box as his own witness and filed duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced  copy of payment receipt Ex.C2 in support of his claim.
4. On the other hand, Opposite Party-BSNL produced Sh.Alok Kaul, AGM (Legal), who tendered his affidavit Ex.OP1 and produced documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Party-BSNL. 
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for both the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record and also perused the written submissions filed by both the parties.
6. It has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that it is an has been using the BSNL Landline Connection bearing No. 01832566165 for the last more than 10 years installed in his office situated at 39/A, District & Session Courts, Amritsar.  It is also not disputed that the complainant has been regularly paying the bills as and when issued  by Opposite Party  and nothing is due or payable from the complainant at this stage even. This fact also finds admitted in the affidavit Ex.OP1 of Sh.Alok Kaul, AGM (Legal) in para No. 8. Receipt regarding the payment of bill is Ex.C2. It is admitted case of the complainant that telephone in dispute oftenly remained unserviceable due to poor  wiring of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party has done the same intentionally. Despite making numerous complaints, the Opposite Party has failed to make the telephone in dispute serviceable. To prove  the complaints made by the complainant, attested copy of Subscriber Fault Card is CX on the record. It is further admitted by the Opposite Party that the telephone of the complainant remained unserviceable due to BRTS project, but it is all the more astonishing because except the telephone of the complainant, all other telephone connections were working properly. The complainant is unable to understand  that whether the BRTS project had adverse effect on the telephone of the complainant only? It is further contended  that the complainant has made a case for grant of compensation. Besides this, the complainant may also be awarded costs of litigation.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party-BSNL has contended that the instant complaint has been filed by the complainant on the basis of wrong & cocked up facts. There was no break down of the telephone in the months stated in the complaint. As and when any defect was brought to the notice of the Opposite Party, same was rectified within a day or so. It is further contended that false allegations have been levelled by the complainant on the Opposite Party, rather the service of the telephones in the vicinity as well as that of the complainant was affected due to BRTS service and due to digging of the road underground wiring of the telephone was disrupted. Similarly, due to the widening of the road at most of the places the poles and pillars were shifted by the electricity department for laying of electricity underground wiring. Due to shifting of the electrical poles underground wiring of electricity and sewerage water damage was caused  to the underground cable net working of the Opposite Party. Opposite Party has put best efforts to rectify connection. Opposite Party has also sent  notices which were replied by the Opposite Party bearing Ex.OP3, Ex.OP5 and Ex.OP6, which itself indicates that due attention was paid to the complaints made by the complainant. Not only break down in telephone connection was rectified, rather the  Opposite Party has granted the waiver of the telephone bills of the complainant which find mentioned in reply Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4. Again rebate was provided  on 10.9.2015 for the period 15.7.2015 to 30.9.2015 to the complainant. At one place the complainant was being granted concession while on the other hand, the complainant wants to get the compensation for alleged deficiency in service. The complainant can not claim two benefits for  one and the same alleged civil wrong. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and it is contended that the complaint is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.
8. We have gone through the thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions.
9. The facts are almost admitted that the complainant is subscriber of BSNL Landline Connection bearing No. 01832566165 for the last more than 10 years. It is also not disputed that relevant period of six months prior to the filing of the complaint, there used to be disruption in telephone service due to BRTS service undertaken by Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. Because the roads were dug out for widening and strengthening while the electricity department laid underground wiring in that area and on that account the electricity poles and wiring were shifted. As and when the complainant attended to promptly by the Opposite Party. Details regarding the same find mentioned in para No.4 of the affidavit Ex.OP1 of Sh.Alok Kaul, AGM (Legal) of Opposite Party which is reproduced for ready reference as under:-

A perusal of above detail shows that prompt action was taken on the basis of the complaints made by the complainant and it can not be stated that the complaints filed by the complainant went abegging & no action was taken thereon.

10.     There is also evidence on record that the complainant was given concession on account of disruption of service of BSNL telephone in his name by Opposite Party for a number of times. Had the disruption of telephone net work was on the part of the Opposite Party intentionally, as is the case of the complainant, there was absolutely no necessity for giving any concession to the complainant. It appears that complainant has filed the instant complaint simply to harass the Opposite Party. Opposite Party has no axe to grind against the complainant. The instant complaint is nothing but a abuse of the process of law. The complaint is without any merit; as such,  the same fails and is ordered to be dismissed.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 26.04.2016.                                                        (S.S.Panesar)                                                                                                                                                                                                       President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                                  Member                         Member