BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAPURTHALA.
Complaint No. 82/2022
Date of Instt. 21/11/2022
Date of Decision:28/11/2024
Satwant Singh S/o Hardev Singh R/o Lakhan Kalan, District Kapurthala.
....Complainant Versus
BSNL Telephone Exchange Office, Near Kamra Bagh, Kapurthala through its authorized signatory.
...Opposite party
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act
Quorum: Before: Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh (Member)
Present: Sh. Haranmol Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate for the OP.
Order
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 2019. As per the complainant version, the official of the opposite party charged Rs.4,100/- which was paid by complainant to the official of the opposite party namely Amit Kumar for issue of internet connection. Who requested for the same to the complainant and the said Amit Kumar also demanded some documents from the complainant but no receipt for the same was issued by the opposite party. As per the version of the complainant he requested the official of the Opposite party so many times to get the fibre internet connection installed in the premises of complainant but the opposite party delayed the matter on one pretext to another and the complainant filed the present complaint with the prayer that opposite party may kindly be directed to install the internet connection alongwith 50,000/- as damages on account of harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation charges. The complainant filed the present complaint alongwith exhibited documents C-1 to C-4.
2. The opposite party filed the written statement alongwith attested Affidavit of concerned officer and taken preliminary objections. As per version of opposite party that the complainant approached the BSNL/opposite party through there Revenue Share partner Sh. Amit Kumar Arora for fiber Internet facility at his home which is situated outside the village approximately 1.5 kilometer away from the BSNL connectivity. As per version of opposite party, as per scheme of the Central Government BBNL (Bharat Broadband Network Ltd.) has laid optic fiber from Kapurthala to Lakhan Kalan Gram Panchayat in Government School. From the said optic fiber, BSNL has taken one fiber on shared basis from said BBNL GP of village Lakhan Kalan and has laid further overhead optical fiber for providing BSNL fiber connections in village Lakhan Kalan. From the said overhead optic fiber, BSNL has already provided connections to Bank on lease and to some other customer connections in village Lakhan Kalan. The complainant applied for BSNL FTTH Plan through Sh. Amit Arora BSNL share partner, but Sh. Amit Arora told the complainant that the exact speed of the internet connection can only be determined after actual installation of the connection and if after installation the complainant is satisfied, only then the Bill will be generated and amount will be charged. The complainant agreed to this and online connection was booked. The overhead optical cable was specially laid for his connection for about 1.5 Km. After installation, the complainant was not satisfied with the internet speed as per BSNL committed plan and refused to accept the connection. As such, BSNL share partner requested BSNL/opposite party to cancel the connection and opposite party not to charge any amount towards Bill and the connection of the complainant was cancelled by opposite party and accordingly BSNL/ opposite party has issued bill of amount of Rs. '0'. Thereafter, few customers adjoining the said area approached BSNL/opposite party or it's partner and two optical fiber connections were provided to them and they are satisfied with whatever speed was achieved at their end. Thereafter, after some time, the complainant again approached BSNL partner to get the connection and told that he is ready to accept the same speed which was earlier achieved. The BSNL/opposite party partner told that through the laid overhead optical fiber, it is technically not possible to provide another connection at the said location above said the BSNL partner has not charged any amount or fee from the complainant. The opposite party specifically denied in their written statement that they have charged Rs.41,00/- from the complainant. As per version of the opposite party the true facts are that said Amit Kumar is not official of BSNL and is only a shared partner of BSNL. Neither BSNL nor said shared partner has received Rs.4100/- or any other amount from the complainant. So, there was no question of issuing any receipt or promise to issue any such receipt.
3. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those made in the written statement.
4. To prove his case, complainant submitted unattested affidavit Ex. CA alongwith documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4.
5. On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit Ex. RA.
6. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and after examining the case file, this Commission is of the view that the complainant contacted the Revenue Share partner of opposite party namely Amit Kumar for fibre internet facility at his home. The opposite party/ BSNL give trial of internet speed to complainant, so that complainant can check the speed of internet. But the complainant was not satisfied with the speed of internet after trial, so he refused to install the fibre connection of the BSNL/ opposite party. Later on, the complainant again contacted the opposite party to install the internet fibre connection at the speed which was earlier offered to the complainant. In the meantime, the opposite party already installed the available internet fibre connection to its available customer and because of that, the opposite party did not have any availability of internet fibre connection in area of complainant premises. The opposite party or its revenue share partner never charged any amount from complainant, the opposite party specifically denied the allegation of complainant regarding amount of Rs. 4,100/- being charged by this revenue partner of opposite party in their written statement alongwith duly attested affidavit of the opposite party.
7. The complainant has filed Ex. C2 which is a complaint against BSNL vender/ Revenue Share Partner namely Amit Kumar, the facts of which does not match with the allegations made by complainant in the present complaint filed in this Commission. Even the above mentioned vendor cum share partner of BSNL/ opposite party has not being made party in the present complaint.
8. Further the complainant has not filed any attested affidavit to support his claim against opposite party. The complainant has filed some documents which itself shows that the complainant has not paid Rs. 4,100/- to the opposite party or revenue share partner. The complainant has not been able to prove his allegation against the opposite party, therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed without any cost.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated
28/11/2024
S. Kanwar Jaswant Singh Rajesh Bhatia
Member President
