Complaint filed on: 11.04.2014

                                                      Disposed on: 28.04.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.674/2014

DATED THIS THE 28^th APRIL OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.L.N.Sharma

s/o late Sri.P.L.Iyer

aged about 71 years

Residing at flat no.201

‘A’ block, Keerthi Regency,

Near SCT IT college, Kaggadasapura Main Road, Maruthi Nagar extension, Malleshpalya,

Bengaluru-560075

By advocates M/s.Aryan Law

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL)

Represented by its

Deputy General Manager (NOW)(East),

Bengaluru Telecom Dist., Indiranagar,

Bengaluru-560008

By Adv.Sri.Prakash Rao

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the deficiency in service in not allotting the telephone connection immediately to his house and thereby has claimed the reliefs of:

1. Getting telephone connection immediately
2. Getting back the original all India shift certificate
3. Compensation of Rs.5 lakhs
4. Litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he being the retired Assistant General Manager of BSNL from Tamilnadu circle, being the resident of Bengaluru applied for transfer of BSNL telephone connection on 15.05.12 by annexing his all India shift certificate issued by Chennai office. He was alloted the phone number 25344031 with ID no.4020996326 with the information that it would be connected within 2 weeks. Though he wrote the reminder dtd.04.07.12 seeking immediate action, no action was taken by the Opposite party. Such further reminders also did not yield result.  The earlier occupants of his residential building also had the BSNL telephone connection and it was intimated to the Opposite party to use the same line and then also no action was taken by the Opposite party. The legal notice sent also went in vein. He became the laughing stock in the eyes of others being the retired BSNL officer, who failed to get connection. The delay of nearly 2 years in allotting the telephone connection made him to claim compensation and charges. Hence this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party filed the version denying the allegations made against him contending that the complaint is liable to be dismissed ab-initio.  There is no cause of action. The Complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and with true facts. This forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint as observed in CA 7687/2004 of Hon’ble Supreme court when the remedy is at arbitration. The Complainant who is the retired employee sought the landline connection where it was not feasible due to non-availability of incoming and outgoing cable. Normally the non-feasible case are put in the waiting list. There were continuous cable damages by external agencies of basic amenities including BBMP/BWSSB/BESCOM etc., Many times cable damages were reported in the particular place where the Complainant seeks landline. The said factual position was intimated to him. The Complainant was advised to take FWT-WLL connection but he refused after completion of all the formalities.  The said area was made feasible and connection was provided on 24.04.14 with telephone no.25341433 with broadband at his request. Such being the case this complaint is filed with malafide intention knowing about the difficulty and practical problems of the Opposite party and it becomes liable to be dismissed. The legal notice was suitably replied. Very strangely, the compensation amount of Rs.5 lakhs was demanded to gain illegally by making derogatory statements.  The Complainant is not a consumer since no consideration is received by BSNL for providing connection.

          4. The Complainant & the official of Opposite party filed their affidavit evidences relying on Ex-A1 to A13 and Ex-B1 to B2 documents respectively. Written arguments were filed by the Complainant. Arguments were heard.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service in not allotting the telephone connection immediately to his house by the Opposite party ?
2. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Dispute No.1: The undisputed facts reveal that the Complainant was the retired employee of the Opposite party at Tamilnadu. After his retirement, he settled at Bengaluru as supported by Ex-A1 pensioner’s ID card.  He had the phone connection at Chennai from 2002 till he came to Bengaluru as supported by Ex-A11, the copy of the phone bill of Chennai telephone. He got the all India shift certificate/Ex-A3 relating to NONOYT-Gen landline phone connection and it was dtd.07.04.12.

          8. The Complainant submitted the application as per Ex-A2 dtd.15.05.12 to Bengaluru telecom system/Opposite party seeking installation of landline phone to his flat no.201, ‘A’ block, Keerthi Regency, Kaggadasapura main road, Maruthinagar extension, Malleshpalya, New Thippasandara post, Bengaluru-75. When he did not get the phone connection immediately, he wrote the letter/Ex-A4 dtd.16.10.12 to DGM (Deputy General Manager), reminder letter/Ex-A5 dtd.05.08.13 and the reminder-2 letter/Ex-A6 dtd.10.09.13 to the CGM (Chief General Manager). Later he wrote Ex-A8 letter dtd.25.10.13 to Chairman/Managing Director of the Opposite party. All these letters were sent by RPAD supported by annexed Postal Acknowledgements.

9. Later he issued the legal notice/Ex-A9 dtd.12.03.14 and it was replied by the Opposite party wide Ex-B1 dtd.13.05.14.  The Opposite party has furnished Ex-B2 subscriber details to show that the order of the Complainant created on 18.06.12, submitted on 24.04.14 was completed on 25.04.14 by fixing the fixed landline to the house of the Complainant. This complaint is filed on 11.04.14.

10. The Complainant in his letters, reminders Ex-A2 to A8 had complained that though the phone no.25344031 with customer ID 4020996326 was allotted to him in response to Ex-A2 application, no steps thereafter was taken for installation of the landline connection, on the ground of cable pair problem. He had brought to the notice of AGM in the presence of the concerned SDE about the phone number of his neighbour 25349600 and non-compliance by the Opposite party becomes the lethargic attitude in providing phone to his house. He had sought the reply about the nature of action through Ex-A5. When he did not receive the reply, he complained to the CGM as to whether the letters were placed before the concerned head for taking needful action, expecting the reply from CGM’s office also within 2 weeks. After the expiry of one year of his application, he questioned as to why the Bengaluru telephone staff are still searching for cable pairs to provide landline connection to him and questioned the fate of the general public, when he being the retired grade one ‘A’ officer of the department faced such sufferings. Ultimately through Ex-A8 letter addressed to Chairman and Managing Director complained against the office of DGM and CGM mentioning about the fate of his application which is not responded atleast by intimating the status of the case.

          11. In Ex-A9/legal notice, he has made allegations that the landline connection was not given to him though he is entitled to get the said benefit post retirement, even after he made repeated requests and visits to the concerned higher authorities/officers and hence he becomes entitled to get landline connection with compensation of Rs.1 lakh.

          12. The Opposite party sent the reply/Ex-B1 contending that there is constant damages to the cable and sometimes          even traffic police are also not permitted them to attend the cable faults due to heavy movement of the traffic. The area of his residential house comes under non-feasible area due to incoming and outgoing cable pairs not available and the cable network was found frequently damaged by BBMP/BWSSB/ BESCOM works and the said facts were informed to the Complainant on several occasions to know the practical problems in carrying the line to his house.  With the lot of efforts of cable team, several cable faults were attended to provide the telephone connection to the Complainant with huge risk involved with police and BBMP authorities. The phone connection was provided on 24.04.14 and at his request the broadband facility also provided on 26.04.14 and thereby the allegations of the Complainant were all false.

          13. The Opposite party has contended that the Complainant does become the consumer since no consideration received for providing connection which ground alone makes this complaint liable to be dismissed. The all India shift certificate cannot be returned as the same is recorded after provision of telephone connection on shift. Telephone connection is already given on 24.04.14 and the broadband connection at his request was also given on 26.04.14 and thereby both these prayers no.1 & 2 do not survive for consideration. The Opposite party further contended that the address of the Complainant was in the non-feasible area. Because of non-availability of incoming and outgoing cable, which made the applicants in that area mentioned in the waiting list. The Complainant refused their advice of getting FWT-WLL connection until the landline connection was provided.

          14. During the stage of further arguments, the counsel for the Opposite party admitted that the Complainant is a paid service holder of Opposite party. It is clear that the Complainant becomes consumer and the Opposite party becomes service provider about the alleged telephone service and its shifting process.

          15. The Opposite party in its reply notice Ex-B1 has stated that the telephone connection was provided on 24.04.2014 with telephone no.25341433 and at the request of the Complainant broad band facility was also provided on 26.04.2014. As per Ex-B2 details order created on 18.06.12 submitted for seeking order on 24.04.2014 and the said order was completed on 25.04.14 providing fixed new landline connection to the address shown in Ex-A2 application. The delay of more than about 22 months to provide landline phone facility after submitting the application for seeking order is not explained by the Opposite party.  The said application was submitted for order on 24.04.14 i.e. after 22 months of filing of application and thereafter landline was shifted/provided within a day for which the Opposite party has not explained the reasons.          

          16. The explanations offered by the Opposite party from 15.05.12 as mentioned in the reply notice and in the version are not supported by documentary evidence of the relevant period atleast in response to the letters and reminders submitted by the Complainant during the year 2012 & 2013. Thereby the offered explanations are remained as baseless excuses only and hence become unreliable.  

          17. The Complainant had furnished the particulars of neighboring buildings and occupants of his own building who had the BSNL telephone connection, insisting the earlier phone connection to his house in 2012 itself and such being the case the contentions of the Opposite party that address of the Complainant was in the non-feasible area becomes untenable. If the Complainant was in the waiting list, he could have been informed by the Opposite party by furnishing the details. The Opposite party has also taken the contention that the Complainant refused their advice of getting FWT-WLL connection until landline connection was provided and it is also not proved by them.

          18. In the result it is clear that there is deficiency on the part of Opposite party in providing the landline phone connection to the house of the Complainant, in response to his application dtd.15.05.12, because of unexplained inordinate delay and thereby the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the affirmative.

          19. Consumer Dispute No.2: This complaint is filed on 11.04.14 after the legal notice Ex-A9 dtd.12.03.14 served on the Opposite party. It appears that after issuing the reply notice dtd.13.05.14, the version was filed on 24.07.14. The said proceedings clearly show that the inordinate delay in providing the shifting of the land-phone is not the accidental one and the reasons given by them became the lame excuses and thereby the Complainant being harassed by the Opposite party becomes entitled to get compensation. The said compensation amount cannot be counted as prayed for by the Complainant. As on the date of filing of the complaint, the phone connection was yet provided and hence the first relief of getting phone connection cannot be the ground to dismiss the complaint. The original All India Shift certificate becomes the record to provide the phone facility at the shifted place and hence cannot be returned as prayed for by the Complainant. In view of the above facts end of justice would be met if compensation is fixed at Rs.20,000/- with litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.674/14 filed by the Complainant is here by allowed partly.  

          2. The Opposite party is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- with litigation charges of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days, in default to pay the same with interest at 12% p.a. till realization.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th day of April 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party/s