DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .
Complaint No. 472
Instituted on: 15.11.2018
Decided on: 29.11.2021
Rakesh Kumar Singla S/o Sh Sham Lal Proprietor of Suvidha Centre, Opposite Tehsil Office, Lehragaga, District Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
- BSNL, Punjab Circle, Plot No.2, Sector 34A Chandigarh-160022 through its Chief General Manager Telecom.
- BSNL Office Sangrur-148001 through its General Manager telecom.
- BSNL telephone exchange Lehragaga-148031 through its Sub Divisional Officer.
….Opposite parties
For the complainant : In person.
For OPs : Shri Rajinder Kumar Adv.
Quorum
S.P. Sood, President
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER BY:
S.P. Sood, President.
1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Singla (hereinafter to be referred as complainant) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he is a RTI Activist and is President of Voice Organization (NGO) and has a great reverence for Lord Shiva and as such he has been instrumental for organizing community Kitchen for devotees who choose to visit holy cave of Shri Amarnath shrine. Continuing further, complainant has alleged himself to be a social worker who have to attend numerous calls on daily basis as he has engaged several volunteers to collect donations for various religious programs. This is how complainant has circulated his contact numbers 01676273500 01676273600, 01676271500 and 01676271600 all of which have been obtained from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Company. Further complainant has alleged that out of above said connections, two are working since the year 2001 whereas other two were obtained by complainant in the year 2007. Complainant also availed broadband services on two of the amongst above said connections with number 01676273600 and 01676271600. Further complainant has alleged that since March 2018 onwards he used to face regular problem with these telephone connections and whenever complainant used to lodge complaints about the same, opposite party no.3 along with some officials used to visit his place and carry out some work. Of late officials of opposite party no.3 also asked complainant to get his telephone sets replaced after paying the usual charges however as the complainant has already deposited required security and has been paying rent to the department regularly so it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to get these sets replaced and even the complainant has also requested opposite parties to replace his faulty telephone sets. He (complainant) did not insist for the new sets only. Since opposite parties have not heeded to his requests therefore opposite parties were clearly deficient in their services. Though the hardship suffered by the complainant has been immense and same has been caused incalculable loss to him still he seeks a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite parties. Faced with this situation, complainant got a legal notice served upon the OPs on 25.09.2018 thereby calling upon them to compensate complainant as stated above but as OPs failed to do the needful so complainant was left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint. Before concluding complainant has again desired that his complaint should be accepted and opposite parties be directed to refund the amount of various bills paid by him in respect of these connections and be compensated for mental agony and harassment with Rs.75000/- and another sum of Rs.11,000/- be paid as litigation expenses.
2. On the other hand, OPs have contested this claim on the ground that they have already filed an execution of award dated 30.05.2012 passed against complainant in the court of Ld. Additional District Sessions Judge, Sangrur and since complainant has been evading the directions of the said executing court and playing hide and seek which has compelled the opposite parties to file an application under order 21 rule 37 of CPC as he has failed to provide details of his properties as provided under order 21 rule 41 CPC. It is only as a counter blast that the complainant has filed present complaint based on concocted facts whereas it is the opposite parties who have to recover Rs.3,78,588/- from him. Besides the above said legal objections, opposite parties have alleged that although the complainant had obtained various telephone connections with numbers 01676273500, 01676273600, 01676271500, 01676271600 but all these connections were working perfectly which is quite evident from the record itself. It is also true that out of the above said four connections the complainant is availing broadband service qua two connections. Further it has also been averred that the complainant has failed to disclose as to which of his telephone connection used to give what sort of problem. However once such complaint raised by the complainant through CDR pertaining to telephone connection no. 01676-273500 on 27.07.2018 was fixed on the ensuing date itself i.e. 28.07.2018. Whenever any such complaint was received by the officials of opposite parties regarding any other connection the same used to be rectified on the same day as per the availability of the resources and staff members on priority basis and as such the complainant could not pinpoint any occasion when his grievance was not attended to promptly. Likewise it was also averred that somehow or the other whenever there was some problem with telephone set same was also replaced of course with an old set immediately without any charge and at that occasion complainant was also informed that as per the departmental rules old and defective telephone set could be replaced with new one after paying Rs.625/- if so desired by moving written request by the users only. This is how it is palpably false that the official of opposite parties ever asked for any such money from the complainant for changing his faulty telephone sets. That being so there was no occasion for the complainant to be exposed to any such harassment or mental agony or loss of his reputation which might have entitled him to file the present complaint as answering opposite parties were not at all deficient in rendering their services in any manner therefore the present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves dismissal alongwith special costs. Besides this, other averments of the complaint were also denied emphatically and prayer for dismissal of the same was made.
3. After completion of the pleadings complainant tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.CWA/1 and various bills pertaining to different telephone connections Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and receipts showing of complainant having deposited the same as Ex.C-17 to Ex.C-23, copy of legal notice as Ex.C-24 and postal receipt Ex.C-25.
4. On the other hand, OPs relied upon sworn affidavit of AGM ( legal) Shri Harminder Singh as Ex.OP-1, resolution vide which officers were deputed to defend any complaint as Ex.OP-2, details of complaints made by complainant since July 2018 onwards Ex.OP-3 and two online complaints received from complainant Ex.OP-4 and Ex.OP-5, circular no. 5 of 2013-2014 and that of circular no.14 of 2018-2019 Ex.OP-6 andEx.OP-7, reply on behalf of Ops to the legal notice Ex.OP-8, convey letter as Ex.OP-9. Besides the above said documents connecting to the present complaint while showing the conduct of the complainant pertaining to the arbitration matter, execution application of 30-05-2016 filed by BSNL against the complainant as Ex.OP-10, objections filed by none other but complainant against award has been brought on record as Ex.OP-11, award which came into existence against complainant on30-05-2012 as Ex.OP-12 likewise application filed by BSNL before the Executing Court against the complainant U/o 21 Rule 41 CPC and also another application U/o 21 Rule 37 CPC have been relied upon as Ex.OP-13, Ex.OP-14 respectively and interim order of Hon’ble High Court in CM-13369 C-II of 2018 in FAO number 1997 of 2017 as Ex.OP-15 and another order of Hon’ble High Court FAO 1997- 2017 as Ex.OP-16.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through various documents with their valuable assistance.
6. At the very outset, it is significant to note that after opposite parties submitted their written reply before this Commission, complainant also took opportunity of submitting rebuttal evidence on his behalf raising preliminary objections against chronological details showing of his having complained retarding the working of some of his telephone connections from July of 2018 onwards till January 2019. In this very context, if we look into the pleadings we find complainant has disclosed in para 3 of his complaint that in the month of March 2018 there used to be a regular problem with his telephone connections however as is evident he could not pinpoint any such particular date or nature of problem being faced by him pertaining to his above stated telephone connections rather it is only opposite parties who were kind enough to come out with the details as to when any particular complaint was received from complainant pertaining to which of his telephone connection and also disclosing when the said complaint was addressed fixing the problem as pointed out by him. However if we refer to the contents of rebuttal evidence pointed out by the complainant we find that the complainant himself is found to have supported the above said details brought on record by the opposite parties Ex.OP-3 we can raise a point that even if he has not specifically disclosed as to when his telephone connection went out of order but since the opposite parties themselves have brought this detail on record but the same does not absolve him ( complainant) of his responsibility of bringing this fact before the Commission. Be that so when we find that the complainant himself has relied upon Ex.C-3 therefore we should not restrict ourselves to the factum of complainant’s telephone connections being going out of order on any particular date rather we must go through the entire contents of this document threadbare and perhaps the complainant would not have any objection to this document which he has been relied upon. Now if we look into the above said document itself we find that except on one occasion i.e. on 27.07.2018 when the complaint lodged by complainant regarding his telephone connection on 27.07.2018 his above said problem was rectified on the following date i.e. 28.07.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that out of these eighteen occasions as many as 17 times no fault was found by the officials of the opposite parties despite there being a complaint in this regard. Since civil matters are decided on the basis of preponderance of probability therefore probability of the fact that complainant might have been in the habit of making false complaints only to harass the officials of the opposite parties on account of having already obtained Arbitration award against him cannot be ruled out. Putting it differently perhaps the complainant has filed these complaints with a motive to prevent and desist the officials of the opposite parties from seeking execution of the said award. It is also a fact that the award dated 30.05.2018 passed against the complainant stood judicial scrutiny on two occasions. So all these things clearly prompts us to conclude that there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and there was no occasion for the complainant to have raised an objection against opposite parties having resorted to unfair trade practice at any point of time. So, in the net analysis when the OPs are not deficient in service, present complaint is found to be utterly devoid of any merit and hence the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A certified copy of +this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.
Announced.
November 29, 2021.
(Sarita Garg) (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (S.P. Sood)
Member Member President
