Punjab

Sangrur

CC/371/2015

Deep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Saini

16 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                            

                                                                    Complaint no. 371

Instituted on:  01.06.2015

                                                                   Decided on:    16.10.2015

 

Deep Singh son of Shri Sikander Singh, resident of Village Kanoi, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …. Complainant.       

                                         Versus

1.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sangrur through its General Manager.

2.     Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Circle General Manager.

 

             ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri G.S.Saini, Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTIES           :     Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate                    

 

 

Quorum

         

                   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                   K.C.Sharma, Member

                   Sarita Garg, Member

 

     

           

ORDER BY: K.C.Sharma, Member

 

 

1.             Shri Deep Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the Ops by getting installed a telephone connection bearing number 01672-245446 at his residence for domestic use, which number has been used by all his relatives being it very old one.  It is stated further that the complainant has been paying the bills regularly to the Ops.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that in the month of March, 2015, the above said connection became in operative and dead. The complainant lodged so many complaints with the Ops for setting right the telephone connection, but all in vain.  It is stated in the complaint that the telephone connection in question remained inoperative from 15.3.2015 till the filing of the present complaint which was filed on 1.6.2015.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the amount of rent so charged by the Ops from the period of March, 2015 till its remained inoperative and further claimed compensation of  Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.3300/-.

 

3.             In reply filed by the Ops, it is admitted that the complainant is the holder of land line connection in question at his residence for a sufficient long time. It has been denied that the telephone connection of the complainant became in operative/dead in the month of March and April and the complainant had been using the telephone connection in question till 14.5.2015.  However, the telephone connection remained inoperative w.e.f. 15.5.2015 and remained as such upto 8.6.2015 due to the cut in the underground copper cable by the contractor of the Central Public Works Department for widening the road from Kheri towards Sangrur.  The damaged cable could not be repaired during this period as the contractor concerned had been doing the digging that road during that period.  It is further averred in the reply that when the contractor completed widening of the road work near village Kheri, damaged underground copper cable was replaced with a new one and the telephone connection of the complainant was made operative.  No rent has been charged from the complainant for the period from 15.5.2015 to 8.6.2015.  The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied by the Ops.

 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 copies of receipts and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of billing record, Ex.OP-2 copy of bill dated 3.7.2015, Ex.OP-3 copy of provisional list of expenditure, Ex.OP-4 copy of demand notice and Ex.OP-5 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties, evidence produced on the file and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

6.             It is not in dispute between the parties that the complainant is a consumer of telephone connection in question which was installed at his residence and is regularly paying the bills including amount of rent.  The complainant has been lodging the complaints time and again, but his telephone connection has not been set right and in this way, the complainant faced problems during the period from March, 2015 till the date of filing of the complaint.  The complainant has further submitted that the Ops have been charging rent for the period the telephone in question remained out of order and hence the Ops are said to be deficient in rendering service.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the Ops have submitted that it is wrong that the telephone connection was not working during the months of March and April.  However, the Ops have admitted that telephone connection remained out of order from 15.5.2015 to 8.6.2015 due to cut in the under ground copper cable by the contractor of the Central Public Works Department for widening the road from Kheri towards Sangrur and soon after the completion of road work, the damaged underground copper cable was replaced with a new one and the telephone connection of the complainant was put in order  and hence the Ops are said not to be deficient in rendering service.

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of documents placed on record, we find that as per the document Ex.OP-1, the complainant has received the telephone calls from the period i.e. 1.3.2015 to 14.5.2015 and for the days when the calls have not been made the version of the Ops is that it is quite possible that the complainant would have not made any calls and further about the period from 15.5.2015 to 8.6.2015, the Ops have also admitted in their written reply that the telephone was out of order due to cut in the under ground cable made by the Central Public Works Department during widening of the road.  The Ops have not charged any rent for the period from 15.5.2015 to 8.6.2015 as per the document Ex.OP-2.  Further the Ops have placed on record the document Ex.OP-3 in support of their version that the under ground cable was cut by the Central Public Works Department during widening of the road.

 

9.             So, from the perusal of the documents, we do not find any evidence led by the complainant as to what loss has been caused to him due to non functioning of the telephone connection in a developing country like India, some times some services are effected due to development work undertaken by the other government agencies.  Moreover, in the absence of any specific loss caused due to the non functioning of the telephone connection during the period in question, we do not find any evidence of the complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops as the services were not disrupted due to their fault and that too when there are alternative facilities like STD booth, mobile phone available nowadays.  The learned counsel for the Ops has further cited judgment of the Hon’ble UP State Commission delivered in Appeal No.1928 of 2004, decided on 27.11.2007 in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and others versus Pahal Singh in which, the Hon’ble State Commission has held in para 5 that “In our considered opinion, there is no justification for award of damages as the specific plea pressed into service on behalf of the appellants was that it was not physically viable to release the telephone connection to the complainant as there was practical difficulty in laying down the underground cable.  It is also mentioned in the Memorandum of Appeal that the efforts were on to lay the underground cable so as to approach the complainant’s premises for installation of the telephone connection but on account of the practical difficulty the exercise could not be completed well in time. There was no reason to disbelieve the appellants on that issue and otherwise also the employees of the appellants had no enmity with the complainant so as to residents of the locality does not confer any right upon the complainant/respondent to  get the telephone installed irrespective of the fact that in his case, it was not feasible. Therefore, we do not find any cogent reason to sustain the award of damages @ Rs.10 per day and accordingly set aside the judgment to that effect. However, the earlier part of the operative order for release of the telephone connection seems to have been carried out as stated at the bar by Mr. R.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.”

 

10.            In the present complaint, the Ops have now put the telephone connection in question in order, so as such, no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops can be held in the circumstances of the case.

 

11.            So, keeping in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.     

Pronounced.

 

                October 16, 2015.

 

 

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

 

 

 

                                                            (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

  

                                                     (Sarita Garg)

                                                         Member