Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/601

Gurinderpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

03 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

                                                            Complaint No:  601 of 17.08.2016.

                                                            Date of Decision: 03.03.2017.

 

Gurinderpal Singh S/o. Sh. Harpal Singh, resident of H. No.181, Phase-I, Sarabha Nagar Extension, Pakhowal Road, Village Dad, Ludhiana, Mobile No.8968156464.

                                                                                ..… Complainant

                                                  Versus

B.S.N.L. Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party 

                              Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM:

SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH. PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant               :         In person.

For OP                             :         Ms. Harsimrat Kaur, Advocate.

ORDER

PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT

1.                 Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he got landline (broad band/telephone) connection bearing No.0161-2806020 from OP  in February 2016 at his house No.181, Phase-I, Sarabha Nagar Extension, Pakhowal Road, Village Dad, Ludhiana. Advance money/rent was paid by complainant, but same connection has not been working properly from April 2016 onwards. This connection worked hardly for 15-20 days in a month. In April/May it did not work for 10 days even. Complaints in that respect were lodged many times with OP, but those complaints were closed without rectification of the faults. Complainant had been paying bills of this telephone connection for un-working period even. The connection was availed by the complainant for use of his son, who is doing Engineering in Computer Science. Studies of son of complainant suffered a lot due to providing of deficient services by OP. Complainant called upon the OP to repair/replace the said connection, but they had been dilly-dallying the mater. Complaint on 08.08.2016 even was lodged, but to no effect. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- for distress and sufferings claimed by complainant by pleading deficiency in services on the part of OP. Even refund of paid amount of Rs.2300/- (i.e. Rs.1000/- advance charges + bill of Rs.1300/-) along with interest @18% per month from the date of getting the connection sought. Direction also sought against OP for replace/repair of the said connection.

2.                 In written statement filed by OP, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts. Complaint alleged to be filed for getting wrong benefit for fault of the complainant himself. OP provided best services qua the connection in question. At the request of complainant many times repair was carried out for rectifying the fault. Copies of repair  reports are produced. It is claimed that question of connection in question not working does not arise. As the connection is working properly and as such, it is claimed that there is no deficiency in services on the part of OP. Rather it is claimed that complaint has been filed with ulterior motive. It is denied that complainant paid any advance money of the connection or that connection not worked as alleged. Complainant alleged to have concocted a false story. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                 The complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence affidavits Ex. CA and Ex. CB along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex. C3 and thereafter closed evidence. Even affidavit Ex. CB of Smt. Narinder Kaur  wife of complainant tendered before closure of evidence.

4.                 On the other hand, counsel for OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Wali Mohd., Assistant General Manager along with document Ex. R1 to Ex. R8 and then closed evidence.

5.                 Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments heard and record carefully gone through.

6.                 Complainant besides tendering his affidavit as Ex.CA, tendered affidavit of his wife Smt. Narinder Kaur as Ex. CB for proving that the connection in question worked hardly for 15-20 days in April, May and June, but it worked for 10 days in July. It is further sought to be proved that this connection did not work thereafter continuously. It is also claimed that despite lodging of complaints many times, action on those complaints were not taken, but those were closed without rectification of the fault. It is on account of this that the complainant had to file application on 18.11.2016 before this Forum that on 01.11.2016 Lineman of BSNL came to his house for putting the connection operational despite stopping him. Further through this application, it is claimed that SMS from BSNL are received for depositing the pending bills. Finally prayer made for directing Ops to disconnect the BSNL connection and complainant should not be harassed for calling upon him to deposit the bills. Reply to this application has not been filed till date. The connection in question was availed under contractual obligations. In view of non satisfaction with the services  of OP by the complainant, certainly he can seek disconnection of connection in question. In view of filing of the application for disconnection on 18.11.2016, complainant not liable to pay bills after 18.11.2016 because reply to that application has not been field despite adjournments. During course of arguments, complainant claimed that the connection in question has been disconnected and he now does not require the BSNL connection in question because he has got AIRTEL connection installed. So certainly OP not entitled to charge the bills of the connection in question w.e.f. 18.11.2016 onwards. Rather in the application itself, it has been mentioned that Lineman of BSNL came to the house of complainant for putting the connection in question in operational condition and as such, same shows that OP provided services to complainant in making the connection functional on 01.11.2016 at least.  This admission on the part of complainant debars him from claiming that connection in question was not operational from 01.11.2016 to 18.11.2016.

7.                 Complainant had produced on record application Ex. C1 dated 08.08.2016 for establishing that he complained OP as if the connection in question not working properly since from April 2016. Same allegation regarding non working of the connection in question leveled by claiming that same hardly worked for 15-20 days in April and May, but for less than 10 days in June and July. Thereafter, this connection is not working as per contents of application Ex. C1. In complaint Ex. C1 also mention made that without rectifying the defect, complaints lodged were closed.  In application Ex. C1 itself, it is mentioned that repeated complaints of complainant lying in the customer care of OP. No reply to this application submitted by OP and as such, it is obvious that the complainant had been repeatedly calling upon OP to make the connection in question functional. Terms and conditions of the agreement for availing connection in question not produced by any of the parties. No terms and conditions pointed out for establishing that bill not to be paid for the period for which the connection in question remained nonfunctional. In the absence of these terms and conditions, it has to be taken that the rent of the telephone connection in question charged through billing, at least is payable by complainant along with the user charges.

8.                 Counsel for OP placed on record fault card Ex. R1 to Ex. R8 for establishing that the complaints lodged by the complainant were attended by way of rectifying the faults. These fault cards are of dates 20.04.2016, 30.04.2016, 10.06.2016, 27.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 30.07.2016, 03.08.2016 and 08.08.2016. The complaints were closed by mentioning the status of dates 09.05.2016; 09.05.2016; 11.06.2016; 29.06.2016; 04.07.2016; 30.07.2016; 08.08.2016; 10.08.2016 respectively. So these dates indicate that the defects with respect to the  complaint of 20.04.2016  was not removed until 09.05.2016 )See Ex. R1). Perusal of Ex. R2 reveals that job card created with date 30.04.2016 was shown in closed status on 09.05.2016. So it is obvious that the complaints lodged by the complainant were not attended at the earliest and as such, documentary evidence produced by OP itself leans in favour of holding that even though the status of complaints recorded as closed on all these job sheets, but defects were not removed expeditiously. So complainant bound to suffer mental tension and harassment. That mental tension and harassment is due to deficiency in the service on the part of OP. However no bill produced by complainant to establish that he deposited the advance charges/rent of Rs.2300/- as claimed in the complaint. As the complainant after availing  the connection from February 2016 enjoyed the connection in working condition until April 2016 at least as per admission suffered in the complaint and as such, complainant not entitled for refund of the deposited rent amount or the advance charges for getting the connection installed because such charges have to be borne by consumer, who is to avail services of telephone connection for broad band. So complainant not entitled for refund of amount of Rs.2300/- but as he himself applied for disconnection through application dated 18.11.2016 and availed working of connection in question though for 15-20 of the days in months of April, May, June etc. and as such, he is liable to pay billing charges as demanded through SMS. However, for deficiency of OP in not rectifying the fault at earlist, complainant entitled to compensation for mental harassment and also to litigation expenses.

9.                 As a sequel of above discussion, complaint disposed of in terms that complainant not entitled for refund of the claimed amount of Rs.2300/- or of interest. However, as disconnection of the connection in question to be deemed w.e.f. 18.11.2016 as ordered above and as such, complainant liable to pay the billing charges until 18.11.2016 only and not after that date. Complainant entitled for compensation for mental harassment of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) and to litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only). Payment of these amounts of compensation and litigation expensed be made within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

                                         (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                      (G.K. Dhir)

                                         Member                                              President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:03.03.2017.

Gobind Ram.