IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 8th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri.Manulal.V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
CC No. 112/2021 (Filed on 14/07/2021)
Complainant : K.K. George, S/o Kuriakose
Kaithavayalil House
Kappadu P.O, Kanjirappally
Kottayam District-686508,
represented by his agent Samsan George,
Kaithavayalil House
Kottayam District -686508
(By Adv.Sijo Joseph)
Vs
Opposite parties : 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
Kottayam District, Kerala-686001
2. JTO, BSNL, Pinnackanadu.
(By Adv.Francis Thomas)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
The Complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a senior citizen availing the land phone services of the opposite parties bearing land line No.04828-236465 for more than 30 years. For the last 10 years the land line service offered by the opposite parties to the complaint is irregular and land phone remain the non functional since 2015. However, the opposite parties where regular in issuing bills. Ever since 2015 the complaint had made more than 50 complaints to the parties whenever the land line became non functional. On each complaint technical staff of the opposite parties resolve issue and the same was repeated. While so on 24.04.2020 a big tree fell on the Kalaketty – Kappadu main road and BSNL land line cables were damaged. The complainant got reliable information that the opposite parties removed the land line cables permanently and where not replaced. This is an arbitrary action of the opposite parties without giving any notice to complainant/consumer. The land line remained non-functional since 24.04.2020. Despite the fact that the land line was non-functional the opposite parties kept on sending bills regularly. The original complainant being a senior citizen, who depends on the land line mode of telecommunication for getting connected with his children, grand children and other relatives, is put to irreparable hardship due to the above said act of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is filed for getting compensation and refund of bills paid from the month of July 2019. Upon notice the opposite parties appeared and filed joint version. The contention of the opposite parties is that no as per the Supreme Court decision no consumer complaint will lie against BSNL. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The service to the No.0482-823465 was provided on 11.07.1995 from Pinnakkanadu exchange. The averments of the petitioner is that the line was faulty for the last 10 years and remained non-functional from 2015 is not correct and it can be seen from the usage details for 2016. February 2016-165 calls, April 2016-169 calls, June 2016 -45 calls, August 2016- 36 calls, October 2016- 4 calls, December 2016- 174 calls.
The overhead cable through which the connection was working got completely damaged in an accident in 2020. The averment that respondents removed that cable permanently is not correct and hence denied. The land line connecting to the said telephone number was extended to the customer’s premises initially through underground cable. This underground cable network was severely damaged at several portions in distribution cable network to the connection due to major road works in previous years and repairing and retrieving of underground cable in that route was practicably not feasible. However, the connection was restored using 350 minutes of overhead cable during that period. The overhead cable through which the connection was thus restored got completely damaged in an accident and subsequent cutting of tree in the route a year ago. Drawing aerial cable is currently not possible due to the presence of 11 KV line and absence of suitable structures to draw cable due to constructions that happened along the road side, without which rectification of fault is technically not possible. In such circumstances where fault rectification is not feasible, normally BSNL presently offers the alternative service through fiber connectivity where ever technically feasible. However, fiber connectivity by BSNL which is provided through their partner LCO (Local Cable Operator) is presently not available in that area. On integration of new partner LCO in the area, which is awaited very soon, fiber connection can be provided to the customer. Till that time BSNL, can offer (aseem) facility to the customer, which is a virtual connection where calls to the existing number are diverted to a mobile number of customers, allowing customer to receive all the incoming calls to the present number. The averment that regular monthly bills are sent without the connection being functional is incorrect. The customer is in annual plan of Rs.1,200/- per year and the bill is issued in the month of June every year. Rent rebate Rs.1,600/- towards the rent of 16 months are issued to the customer for the faulty period of from April 2020 to July 2021.
The present fault caused by falling of tree happened April 2020 as admitted by the petitioner himself. Rent rebate Rs.1,600/- towards the rent of 16 months issued to the customer for the faulty period April 2020 to July 2021. The petitioners request for restoring the land line connection is technically not feasible due to the aforesaid reason and the opposite parties are ready to give the call diversion facility (aseem) and further on integration of LCO covering the area land phone facility through fibers can be provided. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence complaint is liable to dismissed.
The complainant adduced evidence through affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with documents which were marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. Whereas the opposite parties also filed proof affidavit along with documents marked as Exbt. B1 to B7. On perusal of pleading and evidence the points to be consider are whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and if so what are the reliefs.
On the basis of the evidence and facts we frame the following issues:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable or not.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
- If so what are the relief and cost.
The case of the complainant is that though he has availed a land line connection from the opposite parties he was getting interrupted connection all through the years till 2020. In April 2020 due to an accident and subsequent cutting down of tree the land line cable of the opposite parties where damaged and there after the connection was disconnected. Despite the interrupted connection and disconnection the opposite parties kept on sending bills regularly. Even after repeated requests the opposite parties did not reconnect the connection on the other hand they contented that they were giving uninterrupted service till 2020 and thereafter on the happening of the accident due to several technical reasons they are unable to reinstate the land line connection. Instead they expressed their willingness to give an alternate mobile connection for attending all calls in the land line. The opposite parties themselves admit the fact that the underground cable network extended to customer’s premises was severely damaged at several portions in distribution cable network due to major road works and repairing and retrieving underground cable in that road is not practically feasible. Thereafter the connection was restored using 250 mtr of overhead cable but the said cable got completely damaged in an accident in 2020. Due to presence of 11 KV line and absence of suitable structure to draw the cable and due to constructions along the road side, drawing arial cable is currently not possible which is the only technical rectification possibility. It is the usual practice of the opposite parties that where fault rectification is not feasible they offer alternate services through fiber connectivity. This fiber connectivity is also not available in the area of consumer as of now. The opposite parties expect integration of new partner LCO in the area and thereafter fibre connection can be provided to the customer. Till that time BSNL can offer ‘aseem’ facility to the customer which is a virtual connection where calls to the existing number are diverted to the mobile number of customers allowing the customer to receive all the incoming calls to the present number.
The complainant being a bonafide consumer of the opposite parties availed a land line connection by paying rent for the devise and monthly call charges. It is a well admitted fact that the susceptibility of aged people to technology is normally low. So most of the senior citizens are comfortable to use land line phone connection. The complainant consumer also depend on the land line connection to get connected with outside world. So if the same is disconnected forever he will be put to severe hardships.
The opposite parties being service providers are bound to assure uninterrupted land line services to their customers as per the agreement with the customer. Several technical problems may arise which would hinder the smooth service of connection but the opposite parties are responsible for rectifying all these difficulties in order to satisfy the customer. The land line connection lost permanently due to the accident in 2020 and the complaint is filed in July 2021. Even after elapse of 2½ years the opposite parties who where in expectation of signing with a new LCO partner in the area turned out to be a failure. So the act of the opposite parties of not attending to the problem of the complainant even in this era of technology is found to be a deficiency in their service and point no.1 is found in favour of the complainant.
Further Exbt. A2 and Exbt.A3 are the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant on 05.06.2021 and 26.02.2022 for Rs.833/- and Rs.240/- respectively. The opposite parties themselves admit that in April 2020 the land line was disconnected and they had a rent rebate of Rs.1,600/- towards the rent of 16 months which was issued to the customer for the 4th period of April 2020 to July 2021. As it is seen from the documents that though the opposite parties contented that they had adjusted the rent of the land line connection of the complainant, Exbt.A2 and Exbt.A3 are the bills issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for the phone no.04828236465 for Rs.833/- dated 05/06/2021 and Rs.240/- with payment due date 20/06/2022 respectively. From the version itself the opposite parties has admitted that in 2020 land line was disconnected in an accident and so they had adjusted the rent from April 2020 to July 2021. The land line was totally disconnected from April 2020 and no call could made by the complainant. So Exbt.A2 and Exbt.A3 bills are seen void. So the act of the opposite parties by not giving proper connection to the complainant /consumer after receiving all the bill payment and deposit amount is found to be a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties ought to have rectified the connection by any means to satisfy its consumer. Hence the complaint is allowed by the following order.
The opposite parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards the sufferings and hardships of the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost. The order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order in default awarded amount will carry 9% from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 8th day of February, 2023.
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member sd/-
Sri.Manulal.V.S, President sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1- Original Power of Attorney dated 10/06/2022.
A2- Copy of bill dated 05/06/2021 issued from BSNL
A3- Copy of bill issued from BSNL
A4- Copy of e-mail dated 06.06.2021 at 1.03 p.m
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite parties
B1- Copy of invoice dated 05.02.2016
B2- Copy of invoice dated 05.04.2016
B3- Copy of invoice dated 05.06.2016
B4- Copy of invoice dated 05.08.2016
B5- Copy of invoice dated 05.10.2016
B6- Copy of invoice dated 05.12.2016
B7- Copy of rent rebate issued by BSNL
By order
sd/-
Assistant Registrar
