<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1211/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> Sri.S.A.Narayana Prasad,<br /> 243, I Cross, 3rd Phase,<br /> 2nd Block, BSK 3rd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560 085.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES <br /> <br /> 1. Principal General Manager,<br /> Bangalore Telecom District,<br /> Telephone House,<br /> Raj Bhavan Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Commercial Officer – South 1<br /> (Channammana Kere Exchange)<br /> 123, Prasanna Complex,<br /> D.V.G Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 004.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Laxminarayan N Hegde.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 Rs.69,000/- by way of damages and remove the telephone connection given to phone Nos.26694800 and 26694807 and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP towards the Broadband connection to his phone No.26695578. He had another land line facility bearing phone No.26695992. The said two telephones were drawn from the telephone pole situated across the street with loose wires hanging on. Due to some interruption the said phones used to go dead frequently, some times due to heavy rain or some times due to high vehicle moving on the street. Thus he made repeated requests to OP to rectify the said line. Ultimately in January 2002 OP provided DP set box at complainant’s premises after effecting road cutting and installing underground wires through the pipes. Since then there was no such problem with the said two telephones. But thereafter without his consent or permission OP started giving connection to the neighboring telephones through the said DP box by trespassing into his premises. The requests made by the complainant not to cause such nuisance and trespass went in vain. With all his objections OP gave connection to two telephones 26694807 and 26694800. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. As and when some problem aroused with neighboring telephone, the officials of OP visited the complainant’s house wherein the DP box is installed and use to rectify the defect by making lot of noise and nuisance. The privacy of the complainant’s inmates is affected. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they are permitted to draw line and put up the poles, Apparatus without acquiring land or building. As per the Government orders and rules complainant can’t raise any objections with regard to proper utilization of the DP box. At the request of the complainant only the said DP box was installed at the premises of the complainant to facilitate him. It contains 5 pairs of connection, complainant had two and other three telephone connections can be given from the said DP box. So OP has given two more connections from the said DP box. There is nothing wrong. Complainant as a matter of right can’t claim the privacy or exclusive right over to the said DP box. On the receipt of complaint from the complainant OP is finding out alternative to shift DP box. They will take necessary steps within reasonable time to avoid further inconvenience if any. The other allegations are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. OP is not liable to pay the compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the ‘consumer’ and availed the services of the OP with regard to his two telephones. It is also not at dispute earlier he got the telephone line drawn from the telephone pole situated across the road having loose wires hanging on. When he faced certain difficulties and problems with regard to his telephones being frequently going out of order and some times become dead, he requested the OP to make alternative arrangement. The fact that OP obliged and in the month of January 2002 set up the DP box at the complainant’s premises after effecting the road cutting and installing underground wires through pipes is not at dispute. So the DP box is set up in the premises of the complainant at his request.<br /> <br /> 7. Since then complainant is not facing any problem with his two telephones. But now the grievance of the complainant is that from the said DP box without his consent permission and by trespass OP has drawn two more telephone connection to his neighbours thereby caused nuisance to his peaceful leaving. Admittedly the said DP box was provided with 5 pairs of connection. Complainant has got two till three more facilities were available. That is why OP has connected two more telephone with the available facility in the said DP box bearing number 26694800, 26694807. In our considered view that act of the OP does not amounts to either trespass or nuisance much less deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. OP has exercised its powers and jurisdiction in giving telephone connection to the public at large in the better interest of the ‘consumer’. There is no rule as such that before fixing of such DP box or drawing the line, OP is required to take the consent or the permission of the owner of the building etc. So the objections raised by the complainant appears to be little, baseless and imaginary. When OP obliged to the request made by the complainant in fixing of the said DP box to avoid a frequent problem faced by him due to hanging wire that would have been the end of the matter. Why complainant thought of prosecuting the OP again is not known.<br /> <br /> 9. OP at para.8 of their version have specifically contended that after taking into consideration the repeated complaints made by the complainant they will find out the alternative way and shift the DP box within a reasonable time. Complainant without waiting patiently had filed a complaint on 29.05.2008 and in his own affidavit it is mentioned that after filing of the complaint that is on 27.06.2008 within a span of one month OP took steps to dislodge the Telephone connection to his neighbours from the DP box located in his premises by effecting alternative arrangements. That means to say the relief now as sought by the complainant is fulfilled.<br /> <br /> 10. What ever the problem complainant had with regard to giving telephone connection to the neighbours is solved. Having taken into account of the facts and circumstances of the case we don’t find it is a fit case wherein complainant is entitled for the damages as prayed. In our view complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. We have already made it clear in the body of the order that OP has acted in accordance with the rules, regulations and powers confirmed upon it while drawing the telephone connection, telephone line, fixing of DP box etc. There is no violation of such rules and regulations which may cause either mental agony or financial loss to the complainant. Under such circumstances complainant is not entitled for the damages. The relief become in-fructuous. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (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 18th day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />