Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant is a customer of Thumpamon Telephone Exchange of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  He is an internet subscriber.  When the internet connection became failed he informed this fact to 1^st opposite party on 22.05.2015 and his complaint is registered there.  This 1^st opposite party directed the complainant to test the modem and adaptor at Thumpamon Exchange of BSNL and after the testing a new modem is replaced to the complainant and net connection is restored.  He again contended that for the functioning of this net connection delay is caused and on 08.06.2015 he sent a registered complaint to Kulanada BSNL Office.  In this letter he warned the 2^nd opposite party to restore the connection within 2 days of the receipt of this letter or otherwise the complainant is constrained to take further steps against him.  According to the complainant, the opposite party has not taken any steps to redresses his grievances up to 30.06.2015 and on that date at 1.22 p.m he made a telephone call to the said Kulanada office and they replied that ‘the modem is repaired and kept in Kulanada office if you come you can collect it’.  In consideration of this reply on that date at 2.50 p.m. the complainant arrived at BSNL office at Kulanada to fetch the said modem.  The complainant is forced to sit in the cabin of the said office for 1 hour and after that time the consent officer replied to him that the modem of the complainant is not on rental basis and he has to purchase a new modem from outside.  According to the complainant, if the opposite party has given a proper reply to his letter dated 08.06.2015 he would have not approached this Forum for any compensation or for any other orders.  The act of the BSNL authorities are caused much mental agony and sorrow to the complainant.  He again stated that due to the absence of the net connection for the last 1½ months he used to spent merely Rs.1,000/- for internet connection from outside and he has to go out from his business premises for this purposes.  A business loss of Rs.3,000/- is also caused him due to his absence in the business premises.  The complainant also demanded a compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the authorities concerned by inviting him in the office and sent him with empty hand.  Hence he filed this complaint for the above reliefs.

                   3. This Forum entertained his complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  The opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version as follows:  The opposite parties admitted that a broad band connection was provided to the complainant by BSNL under a tariff scheme, i.e. ‘on customer owned modem basis’ in which the complainant uses a modem purchased by him. The BSNL does not charge any monthly rent on the consumer concerned.  According to the opposite parties, no assurance regarding the modem was given to the complainant since the modem was not provided by BSNL.  The modem No.267420 had been checked at BSNL Office at Thumpamon and found it is faulty and the complainant was advised to buy a new one.  The opposite party convinced the complainant at Kulanada office of the BSNL to the effect that no rent for modem was charged for the broad band connection which was provided on 27.01.2014 as ‘customer owned modem basis’.  This opposite party again contended that there is no deficiency in services on the part of this opposite party and the opposite party is not liable to refund any rent to the complainant since no rent was collected from the complainant.  The opposite parties action pointed out that they are not liable for the cost of the complainant and there is no locus standi for the complainant.  Therefore, opposite parties prayed to dismiss this complaint with a cost to them.

                   4. This Forum entertained the complaint, version and records and framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
2. If so regarding reliefs and costs?

        5.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant himself examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 and A2 series on his side.  The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence on their part.  But they cross examined the complainant (PW1).  When we peruse the chief examination of the complainant, it reveals that the content of the chief examination is more or less as per the tune of the complaint.  Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the letter dated 08.06.2015 which was issued to the Officer, BSNL, Kulanada by the complainant.  Ext.A2 series are 2 BSNL bill dated 08.09.2015 and 08.07.2015 for Rs.662 and Rs.917/- respectively. 

          6. Point Nos.1 & 2:-  We are considering Point Nos.1 and 2 together for the sake of convenience.  When we peruse the chief examination of the complainant his testimony disclosed that he is a customer of Thumpamon Telephone Exchange and he is having an internet connection for the last 1 ½ years.  It also reveals that on 20.05.2015 onwards the said net connection is not functioning properly and the complainant (PW1) issued a notice to the 1^st opposite party regarding this defect.  Even though, the complainant accepted the direction of the 1^st opposite party and deliver the internet modem to the Thumpamon Telephone Exchange for rectification, the officer concerned to the Thumpamon Telephone Exchange replied to him, that the modem which was produced by the complainant was not a defective one and the adaptor of the modem is in defective.  As per the testimony of the complainant, he narrated that the officer of the Thumpamon Telephone Exchange deliberately and purposefully harassed the complainant on 30.06.2015 by inviting him to his office and simply spent his valuable time.  According to him, if the authorities have given a proper reply to Ext.A1 notice he would not have gone to Thumpamon telephone exchange for collecting a new modem.  The act, approach and ill treatment of the BSNL officers is highly intolerable and these officials are answerable to his mental agony and other difficulties which he suffered.

                  7. The learned counsel appearing for the 1^st opposite party cross-examined this PW1 and made an attempt to dispute the contents of the complaint.  He deposed in cross-examination, “BSNL എനിക്ക് modem തന്നിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല. എനിക്ക്  BSNL provide ചെയ്ത modem ആണ്. അവരാണ് install ചെയ്ത് തന്നതും.  Purchase Bill  എനിക്ക് അവർ തന്നിട്ടില്ല.  BSNL പ്രത്യേക bill modem-ത്തിന് തരുമോ എന്ന് എനിക്കറിയില്ല.”.  This part of deposition shows that, the complaint is still, strong in his stand that the modem has provided by the BSNL office.  But at the same time, the BSNL is failed to produce any document to show that the BSNL has been stopped the supply of modem to their customers.  If the modem is supplied by the BSNL authorities, no doubt it is their duty to cure the defect if any found.  As per the version of the opposite party it is seen that this complainant is using ‘a customer owned modem basis’ scheme and the BSNL is not providing the modem.  Another important argument of the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party is that the BSNL authorities has not collected any rent for modem from the complainant since it is under “customer owned modem”.  But when we peruse Ext.A2 series, it reveals that the complainant is not using the broadband facility as on the bill dated 08.09.2015 and 08.07.2015 respectively.  As per Ext.A2 series 3^rd bill dated 08.06.2015, it is not clear whether he used the broad band facility or not.  Hence it is evident to see that the BSNL authorities has not imposed any charge for broadband connection as per Ext.A2 series bill 1 and 2.

          8. When we are considering the Ext.A2 series bill 1 and 2, it is clear that the BSNL authorities has not charged any rent upon the complainant for using the modem and no broad band charges are also levied against him.  On the basis of this peace of evidence it is clear that the modem is not provided by the BSNL authorities, even though the complainant has a contrary claim.  It is also evident from Ext.A2 series to the effect that the BSNL authorities has not charged any net charge as per the bill.  Though in cross-examination, the complainant deposed that the BSNL authorities charging the net bill against him.  The stand taken by the complainant with regard to this matter is also not true as per Ext.A2 series.  When considering the nature and circumstances of this case, we have to look into the attitude of the authorities as per Ext.A2 letter.  It is seen that the complainant sent a letter as per Ext.A1 and the same is received by the 1^st opposite party.  There is no evidence to show that whether the opposite party consider this Ext.A1 or redress the grievances properly.  It is pertinent to see that  complainant as a customer of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party he has every right to get the broad band connection properly.  It is evident to see that the broad band connection of the complainant is in default from 20.05.2015 onwards.  Though the complainant demanded for compensation from the opposite parties for the excess expenditure incurred by the complainant for using outside internet facilities, in the light of the above finding that request cannot be entertained.

          9. In the light of the evidence discussed above, we decided to allow this complaint in part.  Point No.1 and 2 are found partly in favour of the complainant and passed the following orders:

1. The opposite parties are directed to re-instate the broadband connection of the complainant within 15 days of this order, if the complainant purchased a new modem and report it to the opposite party in time.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay a cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest till its realisation from the date of this order onwards.

               Declared in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of November, 2015.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                             P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                               (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)              :    (Sd/-) 

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                 :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the part of the complainant:

PW1  :  V.G. Sasidhara Kurup

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Photocopy of the letter dated 08.06.2015 sent by the complainant

        to the 1^st opposite party. 

A2 series :  Bill dated 08.09.2015 and 08.07.2015 for Rs.662 and Rs.917/-.

Witness examined on the part of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                              (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) V.G. Sasidhara Kurup, Vilapparambil Veedu, Thattayil. P.O.,

                    Pathanamthitta Dist. – 691 525.                                  

              (2)  Officer in Charge, Kulanada BSNL Office, P.O. Kulanada,

          Pathanamthiutta Dist.

     (3) General Manager, BSNL Office, Thiruvalla,

         Pathanamthitta Dist.

     (4) The Stock File.