Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/174/2016

Satya Parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

Azad Singh

03 Apr 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.174 of 2016.

Date of Instt.   14.07.2016.

Date of Order:  20.04.2017.

Satya Parkash son of Shri Sheo Lal resident of village Suli Khera Tehsil & District Fatehabad, Haryana.

Complainant

     Versus

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

 

Opposite party.

Before:                 Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                             Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi,Member.                                                                            Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member               

 

Present:                 Sh.Azad Singh Marothia, counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.Lalit Gupta, counsel for OP.

                  

ORDER     

                             Sh.Satya Parkash has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter to be referred as OP) with the averments that he was having a telephone connection bearing No.01667-252806 in village Suli Khera Tehsil & District Fatehabad and he has made the payment of bills sent to him by the OP regularly. It has been further averred that since the telephone connection was out of order since April 2014, therefore, on 16.04.2014 he had moved an application to the OP for putting the connection in working order and kept on visiting the OP but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice dated 16.06.2016 upon the OP as it had sent a bill for a sum of Rs.767/- payable on 24.06.2016. The complainant kept on making the payment of the bills regularly despite the fact that telephone bills had shown usage charges Zero.  The OP had given reply dated 13.07.2016 to the notice wherein it has been mentioned that the connection cannot be restored due to damage to the underground cable. It has been further averred that the complainant is a senior citizen of 80 years and is also a heart patient; therefore, landline connection/phone is necessary for him. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence, this complaint. In evidence the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C4 and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3,Ex.C5 to Ex.C22 and Annexure 5 to Annexure 7.

2.                          Upon notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing reply to the complaint. In the reply several preliminary objections such as cause of action, jurisdiction and maintainability etc. have been taken. It has been further submitted that the complainant had neither moved any application dated 16.04.2014 to the OP nor it was available in the office record and he had also not lodged any complaint qua this on No.198. The OP can provide CDMA wireless telephone connection to the complainant subject to connectivity. It has been further averred that the complainant is not in need of telephone connection and he wants to misuse the identity regarding having telephone connection. After receiving the legal notice the OP had enquired the matter and came to know that the telephone wire was removed by the Railway Department as the overhead wire was crossing the railway track and due to this the area where the complainant sought telephone connection was non-feasible, therefore, the OP-department was unable to put the connection of the complainant in working order as there was no other telephone connection of BSNL and the bill from 01.02.2016 to 13.06.2016 have already been cancelled. It has been further averred that in the legal notice the complainant had claimed to withdraw the bill payable on 24.06.2016. Other allegations made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence, the OP has tendered affidavit of Sh.K.L.Gehlot, DE, B.S.N.L as Annexure R1 and documents Annexure R2 to Annexure R6.

3.                          Arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties have been heard at length and case file has been perused carefully besides going through the written submissions made by learned counsel for the complainant. In his arguments the counsel for the complainant has reiterated the submissions made in the complaint and written submissions and in support of his contention the counsel has relied upon the case laws titled as BSNL Shillong & Gen. Manager GMTD Vs. Saumitra Nath 2014 (2) CLT 170 (MSCDRC), Gasto  Behari Patra Vs. Chief General Manager Calcutta Telephones and others 2003 (2) CLT 687 (WBSCDRC)  and T.U.Mehta Vs. Ahmedabad Telecoms District & another 1998 (2) CPJ 115 (GSCDRC).  On the other hand the counsel for the OPs rebutted the above said arguments of the counsel for the complainant and further in support of his contention has relied upon the judgment titled as Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and another 2011 (182) DLT 597 (SC) Cenotaph Road First Street, Teynampet Chennai Vs. Jaipur Golden Transport & Anr. R.O.No.4736  Roshana  2016 (2) CPJ 644  (NC) and Telecom SSA Dharmshala and other Vs. Surjan Singh Chambail and other  2016 Latest HLJ (HP) 88 (HPSCDRC).           

4.                          Before proceeding further it is desirable to mention here that a landline is a telephone that transmits signals converted from audio data through physical media, such as wire or fibre optic cable, rather than through  transmission as is the case with . The term landline is also sometimes used to refer to a , which is a permanent connection between two locations. However, in recent years, the term is mostly used to differentiate fixed-line home phones from mobiles.  There are two basic types of landlines. A corded landline is one that connects to the provider's cabling through a wall jack. The phone base and the receiver (or handset) are connected by a cord. In a cordless landline, the phone base connects to the cabling through a jack but the handset is connected wirelessly. The cordless phone's range is short, basically within the premises. Cordless landlines must also be plugged into the building's electrical system, which means that  unlike corded landlines they don't function in power outages.  It is also desirable to know that WLL (Wireless in Local Loop) is an emerging Access Network technology based on CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access) principle. This technology is very much useful for providing cost effective mobile service, for providing wireless telephone connection in areas where provision of land line telephone connection is not feasible. WLL has most of the features of a normal telephone like: Dynamic STD/ISD locking. Call waiting / Call transfer Calling line identification Call forwarding Data / Fax transmission (upto 14.4kbps). Morning alarm / Hotline STD/ISD call details along with the bill. BSNL WLL mobile gives facilities of mobile telephone at same cost of land line telephone.

5.                                 Admittedly, the telephone connection was provided at the premises of the complainant and the same was not working for a long period.  The grouse of the complainant is that the complainant is a senior citizen of 80 years and his wife is 77 years of old and is also a heart patient, therefore, landline connection/phone is necessary for them to be in touch with his nears and dears. On the other hand the OPs have come with the plea that telephone wires were uprooted by the Railway Department as the overhead wire was crossing the railway track and due to this the area where the complainant is residing is non-feasible and the Department was unable to put the connection in working order.  

6.                                 After going through the material available on the case file one thing is clear that the telephone connection was not disconnected by the department intentionally rather the telephone wires were uprooted by the Railway Department due to crossing of overhead wiring. It is worthwhile to mention here that the BSNL (OPs) and the Railway Department are government institutions and are being run under the direct surveillance of Centre Government. No doubt both these departments are consumer based and are made to provide facilities to the public at large. It is not disputed that except the telephone connection of the complainant no other telephone connection was there in the village. The complainant was very much in the knowledge about the inability of the department qua providing of landline telephone connection due to crossing of overhead wire on the railway track because the BSNL Department had duly replied the legal notice dated 16.06.2016. The ground taken by the OPs about non-providing of telephone connection due to non-feasible area is not sufficient to escape from the liability of a government institution towards their consumers because had it been so it was for them to redress the grievance of the complainant/consumer by providing best alternate facilities available with them but there is nothing on the file to show that whether the department had ever approached/wished to provide any alternate facility to the complainant or not. Another surprising factor which this Forum has noticed that when the telephone connection was out of order for a long period then as to why they kept on sending the bills to the consumer by showing the usage charges  We also should not forget that when the department is not in a position to restore the telephone connection due to non-feasible area then WLL connection would be the best alternate for the consumer to meet out his necessities in lieu of the landline connection being not connected with any wire.  No doubt the burden always lies on the department to show that there was no defect in the telephone as held by Honble WBSCDRC in case titled as Gasto  Behari Patra Vs. Chief General Manager Calcutta Telephones and others (supra)  but in the present case now the matter is not in the hands of the BSNL only because the lines were uprooted  by the Railway Department therefore, its permission is very much necessary to get the connection in operation. Since both the departments are government institutions and involve public exchequer, therefore, if we allow to restore the landline connection then there is every possibility of multiplicity of cases as well as of unwanted correspondence besides wasting of time and money, therefore, the end of justice would be met if we direct the Ops to provide WLL connection to the complainant as per terms and conditions and on completing of formalities. It is ordered accordingly. The OPs are also directed to refund the bill amount deposited by the complainant besides compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation etc.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 20.04.2017.

                                                                   

                                                                   (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                     President

(R.S.Panghal)  (Ansuya Bishnoi)      Distt.Consumer Disputes

      Member                (Member)                 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.