Punjab

Sangrur

CC/617/2014

M/S G.S. Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Naresh Juneja

12 May 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                      

                                                                   Complaint No.   617                        

                                                                   Instituted on:    12.11.2014

                                                                   Decided On:      12.05.2015

 

M/s G.S. Enterprises, Bus Stand village Kular Khurd District Sangrur through its Proprietor Gurkirat Singh son of Jasvir Singh of Village Kular Khurd, District Sangrur.   

                                                        …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

1.     General Manager, B.S.N.L. Telephone Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur.

2.     S.D.O. (Telephone) BSNL, Telephone Exchange, Club Road, Sangrur.

3.     Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) H.O. Harish Chandera Lane, Janpath, New Delhi.  

….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:     Shri Naresh Juneja,Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :    Shri  Kali Ram Garg Advocate.

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             M/s  G.S. Enterprises through its proprietor Gurkirat Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  he is running  the business of manufacturing the Cement Main Hole at Village Kular Khurd under the name  and style  of M/s G.S. Enterprises.  The complainant had obtained landline telephone connection Nos. 01672-245941 and 01672-245842. The complainant so many times informed the OP No.1  regarding the problem in telephone connections. The OPs knowingly and intentionally  closed the account  No.1008450953 of the complainant without  his consent vide letter (refund order)  dated 25.02.2014. The complainant personally visited the office of OP No.1 after received the closure letter dated 25.02.2014 and made the request to reconnect the telephone connections but he failed to do so. After receiving notice by the OPs, the Ops sent two cheques   for an amount of Rs.760/- and  Rs.1322/- in favour of the complainant. The Ops failed to reconnect the connections till today.  Due to this act and conduct of the OPs the complainant suffered his business and financial loss.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to make  necessary arrangements for putting the telephone connections in working order besides  refund the wrongly charged telephone bills from the complainant alongwith interest 12%  from the date  when the connections  became out of order,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and  to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,

iii)    OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is submitted  that  Zero Rental Telephone No.245841 was discontinued on 17.01.2012 due to nonpayment  of the bills.  However, a complaint was received on 17.12.2013 regarding  telephone No.01672-245842.  The fault was checked and found that telephone was faulty due to damage of 1400 meter underground cable during repair of road, tree plantation work and construction of bridge on drain by State Government from Village Kular Khurd to Bus stand.  The restoration was not technically feasible due to damage of underground cable and the subscriber was informed about the position at the spot.  The subscriber  had voluntarily deposited Rs.1322/-  in routine during faulty period which has been refunded  to the subscriber  vide cheque number 167646 dated 17.07.2014  and the security amount of Rs.760/- also stand refunded vide cheque number 177275 dated 17.07.2014.  The BSNL is ready to provide mobile connection to the customer and the same has already been offered to the customer, but the customer has declined the offer of the BSNL.  As the refundable amount in respect of the telephone  connection in question has already been refunded, there is no occasion for the complainant to request for the refund  of the charges / bills  either with interest or without interest.

3.             The complainant in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and has closed his evidence. On the other hand, the OPs have tendered into evidence an affidavit  Ex.OP-1 and have closed evidence.

4.             In the present complaint, we find that the complainant is a consumer of the OPs as he has subscribed landline telephone connection Nos. 01672-245941 and 01672-245842 at his business premises.  The complainant has been lodging complaints with regard to non-functioning of his telephone connection numbers but instead of repairing the same the OPs have disconnected these numbers and had refunded the security.

5.             In the written submissions, the OPs have submitted that the main connection subscribed by the OPs was 01672-245842 and phone number 01672-245841 was the zero rental landline phone  provided by the OPs. The phone number was faulty due to damage of 1400 meter underground  cable during repair of road, tree plantation work and construction of bridge on drain by the State Government from village Kular Khurd to Bus stand. Now, the restoration is not technically feasible  due to damage of the underground cable and subscriber was accordingly informed of the same and security  deposit had also been refunded to the subscriber/ complainant.

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record, we find  that the landline connections of the complainant had been permanently disconnected  by the OPs on the ground that the same could not be repaired as the cable  has been damaged due to the construction work undertaken by the State Government and now it is not technically feasible to restoration the same and the same is also not viable for them and complainant has been informed about this fact. We have gone through the letter dated 25.02.2014 of the OPs and in this letter except for the refund of the security nothing has been mentioned. The OPs could have disconnected the number of the complainant but then it was required to act with the cannons of the natural justice and to give reasonable prior notice before resorting to such action as the OPs have not given any prior notice, so we find that the OPs are deficient in service.       

7.             So, keeping in view of the above discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs to pay to the complainant consolidated amount of compensation in the sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and litigation expenses.

8.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days of its communication. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

        Announced.

May 12, 2005.

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)            ( K.C.Sharma)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

     Member                   Member                 President

 

 

 

BBS/-