Punjab

Sangrur

CC/428/2018

Satwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Dhiraj Jindal

01 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 428

 Instituted on:   09.10.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     01.02.2021

Satwinder Singh son of Sh. Gurnam Singh, resident of Ram Basti, Gali No.1 Opposite Civil Hospital, Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur through its G.M. Sangrur.

2.             Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Plot no.2, Himalaya Marg, Sub City Centre, Sector 34-A, Sector 34, Chandigarh through its Chief General Manager, Chandigarh.

3.             Baneet Sharma, JE Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur.

 

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:             :Shri  Dhiraj Jindal, Adv.              

For the OP s                         :Shri  Kali Ram Garg, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:   

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Shri Satwinder Singh,  complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant applied for a new telephone connection to be installed in his above said address of Ram Basti. The complainant deposited Rs.500/- with the OP number 1 and accordingly the OPs allotted telephone number 01672-236354 but till the filing of the present complaint OP number 1 has not installed the said telephone connection in the above said address of the complainant despite a number of requests to the OPs.  It is further averred that the opposite party number 3 has involvement in not installing the said telephone connection as she is very close to the complainant’s brother and father and there is some litigation between the complainant and them.  The OP number 3, at his instance, by using influence has not got installed the telephone connection at the house of the complainant.  Further it is averred that the OPs also disconnected the telephone connection number 01672-250358 of the complainant and for this the complainant has filed a separate complaint for the said grievance.  The complainant also got served a legal notice, but of no avail.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to install the telephone connection bearing number 01672-236354 and also to take action against OP number 3 for using her influence in getting not installed the connection of the complainant and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objection have been taken that the complaint of the complainant is frivolous and vexatious in nature and the same be dismissed with special costs.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant has applied for a new telephone connection and deposited Rs.500/- vide receipt dated 25.5.2017.  The computer system accepted the application of the complainant and allotted telephone number 236354 to be installed at the address given in the application.  It is further averred that when on 27.5.2017, the staff of the office of OP number 1 reached at the address, the father and brothers of the complainant raised dispute and did not allow the staff of the BSNL to install the telephone connection and produced a copy of the order dated 8.8.2016 passed by Ms. Kulwinder Kaur Civil Judge, Sangrur in a case titled Parbinder Singh and another versus Satwinder Singh. The field staff of the OP had to come back to avoid any dispute at the spot.  The brothers of the complainant also submitted an application dated 27.5.2017 to the SDO, BSNL, Sangrur regarding their dispute with the complainant in respect of the house.  As regards the disconnection of telephone connection number 250358 is concerned, the same was disconnected on permanent basis on 14.5.2017 on the grounds of non payment of various bills.  Lastly, the Ops have prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3, legal objection is taken up on the ground that the complaint against OP number 3 is false and frivolous one and the same be dismissed. On merits, it is submitted that the OP number 3 has no concern with the averments in the complaint.  It has been denied that the complainant is close to the father and brother of the complainant and it is denied that OP number 3 is not allowing the installation of the telephone connection.  It is stated further that the complainant has submitted the complaint against the OP number 3 in order to harass her. Lastly, OP number 3 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed.  

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant applied for a new telephone connection to be installed at the address of the complainant and deposited Rs.500/- but the telephone connection number was allotted. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that till date the OPs have not installed the telephone connection.  As such the learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

 6.            On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that the complainant had applied for the installation of a new telephone connection after depositing Rs.500/- with the OP.  It is further argued that when the staff of the OPs visited to install the telephone connection, then the father and brothers of the complainant produced a copy of stay order dated 8.8.2016 passed by Ms. Kulwinder Kaur, Civil Judge, Junior Division Sangrur. The learned counsel for the complainant further argued that the Civil Court has granted stay restraining the complainant from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the property in dispute except in due course of law.

7.             To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has deposed as per the averments of the complaint.  Ex.C-2 is the copy of receipt showing deposit of Rs.500/- with the OP. Ex.C-3 is the copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the copies of postal receipts and Ex.C-6 is the envelope.

8.             On the other hand, Shri Harminder Singh, Asstt. General Manager (Legal) has produced his affidavit Ex.OP1&2/7 and has deposed as per written version. Ex.OP1&2/2 is copy of stay order. This civil suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant was filed by Parbinder Singh against the complainant Satwinder Singh and in that case stay order dated 8.8.2016 was granted  by the Civil Court whereby the defendant was restrained from interfering in the possession of plaintiffs over the property in dispute.  No such other order has been produced by either of the parties on the file. Ex.OP1&2/4 is a letter written by Parbinder Singh, Jaswinder Singh, resident of Ram Basti, Gali No.1, Sangrur to the SDO, BSNL Sangrur for not giving the connection to Satwinder Singh. Ex.OP.1&2/5 is the letter of BSNL wherein it is mentioned that the connection cannot be given as civil suit is pending.  It is an admitted fact that Rs.500/- was deposited for the grant of a new telephone connection with the OP, but the connection was not issued by the OPs on the grounds that a civil suit is pending and stay order has been given by the civil court and copy of the stay order dated 8.8.2016 is Ex.OP1&2/2 in which Satwinder Singh was restrained  from interfering in the possession of the plaintiffs over the property in dispute.  This order is dated 8.8.2016 but none of the parties have produced any other order.  The staff party of BSNL went to install the connection but the persons who were having the stay order in their favour did not allow them to install the telephone connection, as such the telephone connection was not installed. 

9.             In view of our above discussion, as  civil matter is pending and stay order has been granted, as such, telephone connection cannot be given, as such, the complaint is dismissed. However, if the complainant shows the opposite parties the building in which he wants to get installed the new telephone connection and the building is different from the building regarding which the civil suit is pending then after verification opposite parties can install the telephone connection. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        February 1, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                  President