DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 173 of 28.6.2007<br /> Decided on : 9.10.2007 <br /> <br /> Gurvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh, VPO Mehma Sarja, District Bathinda-151201.<br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1.General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda<br /> 2.S.D.O., Telecom, BSNL, Bharat Nagar, Bathinda<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. Gurvinder Singh, complainant in person<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Arvind Kumar Sharma, counsel for opposite parties<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred by the complainant Gurvinder Singh seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to restore his telephone connection and pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,99,500/-.<br /> 2. The facts in brief are that complainant was compelled to hire telephone in his individual capacity, although he desired the opposite parties to issue the connection in the name of his educational firm. Telephone connection was agreed to be issued within 15 days, but opposite parties took four months and 15 days for the installation of telephone at his house. It was further mentioned that the telephone tower was damaged due to rainy storm and the opposite parties delayed in restoring the telephone for 4-1/2 months. During this period, complainant remained deprived of the use of telephone. On the other hand, opposite parties continued sending the bills regularly. In the end, complainant prayed for the compensation due to loss in educational institute and business.<br /> 1. Opposite parties filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable for not impleading necessary parties; complaint is vague, false and filed with intention to harass the opposite parties; complainant has not come with clean hands as the connection of the complainant was disconnected twice because of non-payment of bills and complainant wants to take benefit of his own wrong. On merits,opposite parties submitted that complainant was never compelled to take telephone connection from them. Rather, he has approached with a request to give telephone connection at his premises. They deny that complainant applied for telephone connection in the name of his firm. The said connection was issued by the opposite parties as per advice note MMS307 dated 11.5.2005 at village Mehma Sarja. At that time, it was not technically feasible to give new telephone connection on land line at his premises due to non availability of under ground cable pair near his house and the connection was a lengthy connection as nearby underground cable available was more than one kilometer away from the premises where the telephone connection was to be given. The said advice note MMS307 dated 11.5.2005 was returned to the Commercial Officer, Bathinda with the remarks that the connection cannot be provided on land line, but it will be feasible to provide on WLL CDMA FWT. CDMA FWT sets were obtained from the Planning Section GMTD, Bathinda and then again Commercial Officer issued advice note/work order No. WL FBTD 1585 dated 23.9.2005 to provide this connection on WLL CDMA FWT. On receipt of CDMA FWT set from GMTD office, Bathinda, this connection No. 2269825 (now 2169825) had been provided on CDMA FWT on 29.9.2005 at the residence of the complainant. Hence, there is no delay in providing the telephone connection by the opposite parties. No complaint regarding damage to CDMA FWT Anteena provided at his residence was made to the opposite parties. On 19.6.2006 connection was disconnected due to non-payment of the bills and again restored on 8.2.2007. On the second time, it was disconnected due to non payment of bills on 13.4.2007 against bill of 5.3.2007 for Rs. 102/-. Opposite parties further submitted that after clearance of all the outstanding bills by the complainant telephone No. 2269825/2169825 was restored on 8.2.2007 vide work order No. WL FBTD 4660 dated 7.2.2007. Due to repeatedly non payment of bills, connection remained out of order and hence, complainant is not entitled to any compensation for his own wrong. In the light of this, complaint needs to be dismissed with costs.<br /> 2. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Gurvinder Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.2), affidavits (Ex.C.7 & Ex.C.13) of S/Sh./Smt. Triptpal Kaur and Surjit Singh respectively, photocopies of applications (Ex.C.3, Ex.C.4, Ex.C.23, Ex.C.37 & Ex.C.38 respectively), photocopy of Partnership Deed (Ex.C.5), photocopy of Form 'C' (Ex.C.6), photocopies of certificates (Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.12, Ex.C.19 & Ex.C.20), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.14, Ex.C.21, Ex.C.22 & Ex.C.28 to Ex.C.33), photocopies of bills (Ex.C.15 & Ex.C.16), photocopy of Card (Ex.C.17), photocopy of OPD Slip (Ex.C.18) & photocopies of bills (Ex.C.24 to Ex.C.27 & Ex.C.34 to Ex.C.36). <br /> 3. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E.P, Legal. <br /> 4. We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for the opposite parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 5. The main grouse of the complainant is that he had applied for telephone connection in the name of his educational firm/hospital, but the opposite parties forced him to file application for the grant of telephone connection in his individual capacity. Secondly, instrument remained out of order for more than 4-1/2 months. Opposite parties did not care to make it functional. Thirdly, it was pointed out that opposite parties were claiming the bills of the telephone, although telephone remained out of order for sufficient long time. Thus, miserable loss occurred to him in connection with his educational institute and hospital. Since, telephone remained unworkable due to the negligence of the opposite parties, no bill could have been issued and claimed by the opposite parties. In this view of the matter, he is entitled for refund of the amount of bills already paid to the opposite parties and also, he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,99,500/- for mental tension and harassment.<br /> 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that disconnection of the telephone connection was made due to non payment of the telephone bills and it was restored after the payment of the bills. Nothing was illegal or vague. Furthermore, he argued that complainant is not entitled for any compensation as he has not proved any loss on record to his business. Even, he has not mentioned any name of the educational institute or hospital that has suffered loss. Complainant was never compelled to have connection in his individual name. It was all according to his demand as per his application form. Moreover, there was no deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the opposite parties to provide telephone connection to the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as the bills issued by BSNL were only for the rent of the instrument. No extra charges have been taken from the complainant. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the<br /> <br /> opposite parties and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.<br /> 7. It is clear from the affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Mohinder Pal, D.E.P Legal that complainant had applied for telephone connection in his premises by depositing Rs.500/- on 10.5.2005. He never applied for telephone connection in the name of firm or school. No evidence whatsoever in this regard has been brought on record by the complainant. As regards non functioning of the telephone connection for more than 4-1/2 months, no information was given to the opposite parties for setting it right. Even no written request except the letter dated 27.1.2007, copy of which is Ex.C.38, was made to opposite parties. No postal receipt for this letter has been brought on file by the complainant. Opposite parties have claimed only the charges of facility availed by the complainant. Rent and other service charges have been claimed as per rules. So far as disconnection is concerned, disconnection of the telephone connection was only because of non payment of the bills. Whenever he paid the bills, connection was restored from time to time. The demand of compensation by the complainant is baseless as no evidence in this regard has been placed on file. Details of loss, if any, have not come on record from complainant's side. <br /> 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above averments of the parties. All the contentions made over by the complainant are without any substance and evidence brought on file. No-doubt, a bundle of evidence has been put on file by the complainant, but that evidence is not relevant to the facts and circumstances of the present complaint. Tower remained damage for a sufficient long time, but it was an act of God which was beyond the control of the opposite parties. They tried their best to instal and erect the tower in a shortest possible time.<br /> 9. In the result, complaint is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of<br /> <br /> this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> 9.10.2007 Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> <br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />