West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/14/2015

Sri Madhusudan Maji - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Sancher Nigam Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. S. Panda.

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

And

  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.14/2015

                                                       

                                          Sri Madhusudan Maji…………..….……Complainant.

Versus

1)Bharat Sancher Nigam Ltd. (S.D.E.T),

2)Bharat Sancher Nigam Ltd. (G.M.T.D),…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant  : Mr. Somasis Ponda, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Shyamal Kumar Dasmahapatra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 30/09/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President - Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant has land line connection of B.S.N.L vide no.03222-243082 and he has been using the aforesaid land line telephone since long for his domestic purpose.  He has also been paying regular bill in the office of the opposite parties.  On 06/07/2014, his land line connection was found dead due to some technical fault and he made a complaint before the concerned officer of opposite party for necessary repairing of the land line telephone connection. On 22/09/2014, he again submitted a written complaint before S.D.O.T. Balichak and thereafter in the office of the G.M.T.D., Kharagpur and requested to restore his land line telephone connection.  In spite of receiving such complaint, the opposite parties did nothing.   The complainant is a senior citizen and for such disconnection of his telephone line, he has suffered a lot.  Hence, the complaint, praying for a direction for restoring his land line connection and for directing the Ops. to pay  litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

 

 

Contd………P/2

 

-( 2 ) -

 

 

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a written statement. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the land line telephone connection of the complainant was cut down due to underground cable damage caused by the local Panchayet for road expansion work.  As per norms, the local Panchayet should have informed the opposite parties before starting such work of road expansion. Due fund crisis, the cable was not repaired expeditiously but the same has been restored during pendency of this complaint case.  It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Opposite parties, therefore, claim dismissal of the petition of complaint.

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?     

                   

Decision with reasons

                             At the very outset, it is to be stated that neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have adduced any evidence, either oral or documentary.   However, they have relied upon some documents, so filed by them.  At the time of argument, both parties admitted that during pendency of this case, telephone connection in the house of the complainant has been restored by the opposite party.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that although telephone line has been restored but the complainant is entitled to get cost of litigation and compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As against this, Ld. Lawyer for the opposite parties submitted that they had no negligence in the matter of disconnection of the telephone line of the complainant as the said disconnection was done by the local Panchayet during their expansion work of road on that locality.  It is further submitted that due to shortage of fund, they could not restore the telephone connection line in the house of the complainant but during pendency of this case, they have given telephone connection in the house of the complainant.  It appears from the case record that the complainant has filed two copies of letters addressed to S.D.O.T, B.S.N.L which was dated 22/09/2014 & 13/01/2015.  In those two letters, the opposite parties were requested by the complainant to restore the telephone connection in his house and since the opposite parties paid no heed to such request, so the complainant has been compelled to file the present case.  Admittedly, before filing of this complaint, no telephone connection was restored in the house of the complainant but the same has been done during pendency of this case.  This delay which compelled the complainant to file the present case, amounts to deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost.

                                              

 

Contd………P/3

 

-(3 ) -

 

 

                                                Hence, it is,

                                                     Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.14/2015 is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within a month from this date of order. 

             Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                           President                                    Member                                   President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                        Paschim Medinipur