Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/224

SDE BSNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BOBBY ALEN GEORGE - Opp.Party(s)

MAYA R MANI

27 Feb 2020

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 224/16

JUDGMENT DATED: 27.02.2020

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.RANJIT .R                                                          : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R                                      : MEMBER

 

The District General Manager,

BSNL, Kottayam telecom District,

Kottayam-686 001.

(R/by Molly Dominic, Asst.

General Manager (Admn.),                                               : APPELLANT

Telecom, BSNL, Kottayam).                                           

 

(By Adv: Smt. Maya . R. Mani)

 

            Vs.

 

Bobby Alex George,

Kuthukallunkal House,

Olikkara Road, Nadakkapadam,                                     : RESPONDENT

Mammoodu P.O, Changanacherry.

 

(By Adv: Sri. M.C. Suresh)

 

JUDGMENT 

SHRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

Opposite party has filed this appeal against the order dated, 26.02.2016 in CC.169/15 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (for short the District Forum).  The District Forum by its order directed them to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation costs of Rs.2000/-.

The case of the complainant is that he is a consumer of the opposite party having customer ID No.4019297175, vide phone No.0481-2473565.  According to the complainant his telephone became totally dead from 8.4.2015 and the matter was informed to the opposite party on 9.4.2015 as per complaint docket No.113154742652.  But the opposite party did not respond or repair the telephone till 22.5.15.  Then on 22.5.15 the complainant again lodged a complaint as per docket No.113401281862.  Even then the opposite party did not care to repair his telephone.  The complainant being a doctor lost his patients as they thought that doctor was not at his clinic during these days, while they dialed for appointment.  According to the complainant during this period he suffered a lot of financial and mental agonies due to the defects of the telephone.  The act of opposite party in not repairing the complainant’s telephone in time, amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

Opposite party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable.  No complaint will lie against BSNL before this For a, as per section 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  According to the opposite party as per BSNL records, Sri. Sobby Alex George is the user of land phone connection No.0481-2473565 of Mammooddu Exchange.  The fault of the said telephone was due to fault in the underground cable due to lightning. Fault occurred at multiple locations.  Since the fault was in the underground cable there was a delay in locating the fault and for rectification. Now the cable is cleared.  From the telephone bill for the month of April 2015 it is proved that he is using the telephone satisfactorily.  According to the opposite party, an amount of Rs.1842.92 was given as rent rebate for the faulty period of the telephone.  Opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with their cost.

Evidence consisted of affidavit in lieu of chief filed by the complainant and his documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2.  Opposite party filed affidavit in lieu of chief and their documents were marked as Exts.B1 and B2.  The District Forum on the basis of the materials produced found that the act of the opposite party in causing delay in repairing the telephone of the complainant, amounts to deficiency of service.  The Forum on the basis of this finding passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by this order the opposite party has come up in appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was multiple fault in the underground cable of the landline of the complainant and it was caused due to lightening.  The rectification for the same was delayed due to many reasons.  There was delay in locating the fault and they rectified the fault within the short span of time.  Further they have given a rent rebate of Rs.1842.92 for the faulty period of the telephone.  There is no deficiency of service on their part and hence prayed for setting aside the order of the District Forum.  The respondent’s counsel urged that the fault of the land line of the complainant was rectified only after he filed the complaint before the Forum.  So, the contentions of the opposite party that delay in rectifying the fault was caused due to the delay in locating the fault is not sustainable.  The complainant, being a doctor suffered much loss due to the fault of the telephone line for about two months.  The act of the opposite party in not responding to the complaints for about two months is deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

  We have considered the argument put forward by both the counsel and perused the records.

The fact that the land line of the complainant was faulty for about two months is admitted by the appellant.  According to the appellant the fault of the telephone was due to faulty underground cable due to lightening.  The appellant contended that since they have given a rent rebate of Rs.1842.92 during the faulty period and had rectified the telephone within a short period, complainant is not entitled to get any compensation.  There is no deficiency of service on their part.  They have made all endeavors to get the telephone line rectified within a period of two months even though the complaint in telephone line was complicated.  However it is noted that the complainant had paid rent for the period when his land line was faulty and there was no connection.  The appellant should not have collected the rent for that period.  As per Ext.B2 the appellant gave the rent rebate only on 6.8.2015.  Further it is seen that the appellant choose to rectify the defect only after the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Forum.  They did not adduce any evidence, either oral or documentary to substantiate the claim that the delay in curing the defect was due to technical problem as stated by them in their version.  Delay is not satisfactorily explained.  The unexplained inordinate delay in rectifying the defects of the land line of the complainant definitely amounts to deficiency in service.  In these circumstances, the District Forum has found that the complainant is to be adequately compensated.  The District Forum has thus awarded an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings.  However we feel that the amount of compensation and costs ordered by the District Forum is on a higher side.  It is to be noted that the appellant had given rent rebate to a tune of Rs.1842.92 and also to the fact that the complainant’s land line connection was rectified within a few days from the date of complaint.  We feel it just and reasonable to limit the amount of compensation and costs to Rs.2500/- and Rs.1000/- respectively.  Hence the order of the District Forum is to be modified as follows:-

Opposite party/appellant is directed to pay Rs.2500/- as compensation to the complainant instead of Rs.5000/-.  The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant instead of Rs.2000/-.

In the result appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

The complainant/respondent can realize the amount of Rs.3500/- ordered as compensation and costs from the statutory deposit of Rs.3500/- which was deposited by the appellant, on filing proper application.

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT .R : MEMBER

VL.

RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R : MEMBER