DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 168 of 22-06-2007<br /> Decided on :15-10-2007<br /> <br /> Basant Singh Sidhu S/o S. Mal Singh, VPO Kuti (Kishanpura), District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (B.S.N.L. ) Bathinda, through its General Manager <br /> (Telephones).<br /> .... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. M.S.Sidhu, Advocate.<br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to remove the defect in his telephone connection No. 2423675; pay him Rs. 20,000/- as damages on account of mental tension, agony and loss to his reputation; Rs. 30,000/- on account of loss in his income and Rs. 5500/- as cost of the complaint<br /> 2. Version of the complainant lies in the narrow compass as under :-<br /> 3. He is holder of telephone connection No. 2423675 installed at his residence in village Kuti Kishanpura, District Bathinda. He has been making payment of the amount of the bills issued by the opposite party from time to time. He is not defaulter. He deposited Rs. 222/- on 23.5.07 for making unlimited calls throughout Punjab for a period of two months as per policy of the opposite party. This telephone connection became defective. Sometimes it was causing problem in making outgoing calls and sometimes in incoming calls. He lodged repeated complaints with the opposite party vide Nos. 4285 dated 26.5.07, 4297 dated 30.5.07, 4366 dated 12.6.07 and 4436 dated 21.6.07. Ultimately he made complaints directly to General Manager at Phone No. 2246999 on 31.5.07 and 21.6.07 requesting him to do the needful. Despite this, no heed was paid. He could not get the benefit of unlimited calls continuously for one month. His son is an Advocate. He remained out of touch with clients during this period and suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in practice. He (complainant) has undergone mental tension, agony and loss to his reputation. He alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.<br /> 4. Opposite party filed its version taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complaint is not maintainable in the present form and it has been filed to harass it by mis-using process of law. It does not deny the fact of installation of telephone No. 2423675 at the residence of the complainant in his village. It admits that Punjab Free Facility was provided to him on 4.5.07. Faults dated 26.5.07, 30.5.07, 12.6.07 and 21.6.07 were removed on 29.5.07, 31.5.07, 13.6.07 and 22.6.07 respectively. It denies the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-3), affidavit of Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu (Ex. C-1), affidavit of Sh. Gurpreet Singh (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of bill (Ex. C-4).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite party affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E.P. (Legal) (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Fault Card (Ex. R-2) and photocopy of Normal call billing records (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. Onus to prove the averments in the complaint lies on the complainant. For discharging it, he is required to lead cogent and convincing evidence. Complainant has placed and proved on record his own affidavit and the affidavits of S/Sh. Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu and Gurpreet Singh. To the contrary, opposite party has produced affidavit of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E.P. (Legal), who has reiterated the version in the reply of the complaint. Ex. R-2 is the copy of the Fault Card. Ex. R-3 reveals normal calls billing record from 30.5.07 to 30.6.07 pertaining to telephone No. 2423675. Material question for determination is as to whether telephone connection of the complainant remained out of order continuously for a period of one month or not ? Men may tell lies but the documents cannot. Fault card reveals the dates of complaints and their cure. This document is most material. Admittedly this telephone connection is installed in the village i.e. rural area. It cannot be expected that telephone connection cannot go out of order at any time. Question for determination is as to whether defect which had crept was rectified by the opposite party within reasonable time or not ? It cannot be said that opposite party caused inordinate and unreasonable delay in attending the complaints regarding this telephone connection. Complaints dated 26.5.07, 30.5.07, 12.6.07 and 21.6.07 mentioned by the complainant in the complaint were attended on 29.5.07, 31.5.07, 13.6.07 and 22.6.07 respectively. Complainant continued making calls from this telephone connection from 30.5.07 to 30.6.07 as is clear from Ex. R-2. Contention of the complainant that even complaints made by him to the General Manager bore no fruit appears baseless from the copy of the fault card. Complainant has failed to establish that he could not get benefit of unlimited calls continuously for one month and that opposite party paid no heed to his requests. Rather complaints were attended to within reasonable time and defects were removed. Complaint was filed on 22.6.07. Complainant continued making telephone calls from this telephone connection upto 30.6.07. In these circumstances, conclusion cannot be arrived at that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. When it is so, question of suffering mental tension agony and loss of reputation does not arise.<br /> 9. In the premises written above complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed with no order as to costs.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 15-10-2007 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member