Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

18/2014

J.Kenny fernanado, - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL Chennai, rep. by Tmt. Tamarai Selvi, Suh Divisional Engineer, BSNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Party In Person

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                             Complaint presented on:  22.01.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  10.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 10^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

 

C.C.NO.18/2014

 

 

J.Kenny Fernando,

Son of R.Joseph Fernando, aged 46 years,

Residing at New No:6 Old No:4, First Floor,

Maangaali Amman Koil Street,

Aminijikarai, Chennai – 29.

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

BSNL CHENNAI,

Rep. by Tmty. J.Thamari Selvi,

Sub Divisional Engineer BSNL,

New No:18, Old No:40, Vaidianathan Street,

Shenoy Nagar, Chennai – 600 030.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                   : 04.02.2014

Counsel for Complainant                       : Party in person

 

Counsel for   Opposite party                     :K.Balajee and D.Kumar

 

 

 

O R D E R

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to restore Broad Band Internet Connection immediately and also compensation for mental agony u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant originally resided at No.19, Arunachalam 3^rd Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 33 and applied for shifting of his telephone with broad band connection on 03.12.2013 to the present residence at Old No.4, New No.6 first floor, Maangaali Amman Koil Strret, Aminijikarai Chennai – 29. The Opposite Party did not shift the said telephone to his residence, inspite of that the Complainant requested several times in person and also through telephone. Then he sent an e-mail on 21.12.2013 to SM.Kalavathy, GM.North that there is delay in shifting of his landline telephone.  He received reply 21.12.2013 that his Complaint is forwarded to additional GM office for taking action. Again, he sent an e-mail on 26.12.2013 to GM, on 08.01.2014 to VT.Gunasekaran, DGM on 09.01.2014 Sr.GM that shifting was not done. However on 09.01.2014 he received a reply from DGM that the matter was discussed with Shenoy Nagar Exchange and will be resolved in couple of days. Even then the problem was not resolved. Then, on 13.01.2014 the Complainant telephonically informed to Shri.VT.Gunesekaran, DGM and Tmty. J.Tamariselvi. The said Tamariselvi failed to give connection in time. However, on 18.01.2014 his land line telephone only shifted to his residence and did not restore his broad band internet connection. The internet connection is used to Complainant son due to failure to give such connection is education is severely affected. Therefore, the Complainant filed this Complaint to order to restore the broad band connection immediately and also extent the period of such connection for one and half months and also order compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.  

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits the fact that the Complainant is a customer of BSNL, Chennai Telephone with a Telephone connection bearing No.26680147 along with Broad band internet connection. The Opposite Party immediately ordered on 03.12.2013 for shifting of telephone connection with new Telephone No.26642760. The present address of the Complainant pertains to Aminjikarai telephone exchange area. In Aminjikarai RSU, they cancelled the advice note stating that it is non-feasible area and the number was reconnected to old address vide letter bearing No.440620576 on 18^th December 2013.  On the request of Complainant and on the advice of the DGN N/W, the AN was revoked and put  local shift in the Shenoy Nagar exchange are. Mrs.P.Tamarai Selvi, Sub Division Engineer agreed to put through line in Shenoy Nagar RSU by running 250 mtrs of drop wire crossing two streets. Finally the line was put through on 18^th January 2014. The Opposite Party states that the local shift AN was issued on 27^th December 2013 after cancelling the AN from Aminjikarai Exchange,. In local shift, system based procedure is followed (i.e.) first; the system generates deletion order at the old address. After completion of deletion provisioning at new address AN will be generated. Due to system error, the deletion order was not generated. The said errors are informed to IT division of Opposite Party for resolving the same. After resolving the said error, the provision AN was generated in the new address, because the Complainant premises comes under Aminjikarai RSU, the address is not accepted in Shenoy Nagar RSU however these changes were done manually. After shifting the connection, the broad band was generated on the same day. Later the Complainant complained about non working of Broad Band. The said non working of Broad Band is not at the fault of the Opposite Party. Usually either local shift or incoming shift from other exchange, the User ID and password remains same and it will work without any problem automatically. The Complainant phoned to SDE SNR RSU about the non working of the Opposite Party observed that the User ID has been changed in the modem. It was set right and it starts working since 21.01.2014. There is no intentional delay except procedural and system operation delay. The duties of the Complainant was not affected due to delay and the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.         

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4.POINT : 1

           The admitted facts are that the Complainant originally resided at No.19, Arunachalam 3^rd Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai 33 and applied for shifting of his telephone with broad band connection on 03.12.2013 to the present residence at Old No.4, New No.6 first floor, Maangaali Amman Koil Street, Aminjikarai Chennai – 29 and the telephone land line connection was given on 18.01.2014 to the new address Aminijikarai.

          5. The Complainant contended that he requested several time in person and also over phone  and also sent Ex.A1, Ex.A2, Ex.A3 mails to the various officials to shift his landline connection with broad band immediately and however they did not do the same and after much persuasion  the landline connection only shifted on 18.01.2014 and broad band connection was not given and therefore this Complaint has been filed for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party in not giving broad band connection and also caused delay in giving land line connection.

          6. The Opposite Party contended that on 03.12.2013 itself  telephone number was allotted to the Complainant new residential address and however no new connection could be given in the Aminijikarai Exchange and hence on 18.01.2014 they gave connection from Shoney Nagar Exchange to the residence of the Complainant by laying 250 meters Cable and further due to technical error and procedural matters the delay was caused and the broad band also working from 21.01.2014 and there was no intentional delay and hence the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          7. The Complainant was having landline telephone connection bearing No.26680147 at Shenoy Nagar and he wanted to shift that landline with broad band connection to his new residence at Aminjikarai and for the same he submitted an application on 03.12.2013.  On the same day new telephone No.26642760 was assigned to the Complainant. However, the Opposite Party could not give connection from the Aminijikarai exchange. Hence on 27.12.2013 he cancelled the Aminijikari Exchange and generated deletion old address and after that new address will be generated. However, due to system error the deletion order was not generated and this was informed to their IT division for resolving the same.  After, reserving the said error the new address of the Complainant under Aminijikarai was not accepted in Shenoy Nagar Exchange and however the changes were done manually. Further, nearly 250 meters drop wire was connected with Shenoy Nagar Exchange and the land line connection was given on 18.01.2014. However, the Complainant informed about the non-working of the broad band. Then, the Opposite Party officer asked the customer (Complainant) to bring the modem to check and the user ID has been changed and it was set right and modem also starts working since 21.01.2013.

          8. The Complainant specifically prayed in the Complaint that the broad band connection has to be restored. The Opposite Party pleaded in his written version that the broad band is working, since 21.01.2014. This fact was not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed subsequent to the filing of the written version. Therefore, it is held that the Complainant prayer of restoration of broad band connection was restored even before filing of this Complaint.

          9. The Complainant alleges deficiencies against the Opposite Party is that there is a delay in giving connection to the landline and broad band at his new residence Aminijikarai. This Opposite Party pleaded in a detailed manner in the written version that due to error in generating the deletion of old address, Aminijikrai Exchange could not accommodate the Complainant connection and further the connection was given from the other Shenoy Nagar Exchange by running 250 meters of drop wire crossing streets the delay was occurred and such delay was not intentional and only procedural and operational delay. The explanation for the delay in giving connection offered by the Opposite Party is reasonable and the same is accepted that the delay is not an intentional one and due to procedural and operational delay only. Therefore, in such circumstances as discussed above, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service.

10. POINT NO :2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.12.2013                   Copy of E-mail written to S.M.Kalavathy GM

                                                    (N.W.O) North

 

Ex.A2 dated 26.12.2013                   Copy of E-mail written to Senior GM (NW-OPS)

 

Ex.A3 dated 08.01.2014                   Copy of E-mail written to DGM NW (Shri.V.T

                                                    Gunasekaran)

 

Ex.A4 dated 09.01.2014                   Copy of Reply from DGM NW (Shri.V.T

                                                    Gunesekaran)

 

Ex.A5 dated 17.08.2013                   Broad band bill

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY:

 

                                      …….NIL…….                                 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT