This is a case U/S 12, of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an award directing the O.Ps. to repair complainant’s irreparable losses by withdrawing the illegal Bill amounting to Rs. 3254/-, by restoring the land line telephone No. 254385, by paying Rs. 2,000/- per month till the restoration of the land line, as compensation and by refunding Rs. 9303/- as excess
amount paid due to non operation of land line no. 254385, as mentioned in the complaint and examination- in- chief submitted on 06.01.2014.
The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is the consumer of the O.Ps., who are the service providers. The complainant has the Land Line connection being number 254385 covering Broad Band service in addition to telephone and FAX facilities, under Raiganj Telephone Exchange Bill Plan Scheme – BBG FN Combo 599. Said ‘Land Line’ number 254385 was out of service since 03-05-2013 to 07.01.2014. The complainant lodged complainant on 04.05.2013 over telephone and then on 23.05.2013 in writing. On 12.06.2013 the West Dinajpur Chamber of Commerce by a letter made a request to the O.P. No. 1 to take necessary steps in that regard. But no heed was paid to such complaints and request. Moreover the O.Ps. were drawing Bills for faulty telephone continuously since the month of May, 2013. The complainant is a professional engage in Management Consultancy Service. So the telephone with ‘Broad Band’ service is essential and inevitable to the complainant for smooth operation of his profession as most of the communications with his client is made through fax and internet facilities. For the negligence on the part of the O.Ps. the complainant suffered mental agony, harassment and loss of money. There was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. Hence this case was filed with the prayers as mentioned above.
The O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 did not file written version in this case and also did not appear on the dates of hearing of this case. Accordingly this case was heard ex parte against them.
The O.P. No. 1 contested this case by filing written version without denying the case that the complainant has the ‘Land Line’ Telephone No. 254385 under Raiganj telephone exchange covering Broad Band service in addition to telephone and FAX facilities specifically but stating that the case is not maintainable, there is/was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps., due to road widening work causing badly damage of U/G cable between Raiganj Siliguri More to Karnajora by PWD the service of telephone number 03523-254385 along with other telephone connections got interrupted, with utmost effort the service of said telephone has been restored on 06.01.2014 and the complainant is satisfied with the service and the Department of BSNL, in no way related for delay to service and claiming that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
In support of his case, the complainant has adduced his examination in chief supported by affidavit submitted on 06.01.2014 along with chart of Analysis of Bills & Payment of Bills and copy of Telecom Consumers’ Charter (Five sheets), Additional Examination in chief supported by affidavit submitted on 24.03.2014, and photo copies of Mobile Bill dated 01.04.2014 and letters showing complaints lodged before the O.Ps. He himself has been
examined and cross examined as P.W. 1. On the other hand no evidence has been adduced by the O.Ps.
We carefully peruse the evidence on record. In Additional Examination in chief submitted on 24.03.2014 the complainant has admitted that during pendency of this case on 08.01.2014 the O.Ps. have restored the faulty telephone No. 254385 and accordingly the operation and service of internet connection, telephone and FAX are in order. It has also been admitted by him that the O.P. No. 2 adjusted bills for the period of non operation and modified bill dated 08.06.2014. So at present there is no need to pass any award in this regard. Now the question whether the complainant is entitled to get any award directing the O.Ps. to pay compensation @ Rs. 2,000/- per month for the period from 03.05.2013 to 08.01.2014 around eight months and to refund Rs. 9303/- as excess amount paid for his Mobile connections due to non operation of Land Line No. 254385, is required to be decided.
It is admitted that that the complainant has the ‘Land Line’ Telephone No. 254385 under Raiganj telephone exchange covering Broad Band service in addition to telephone and FAX facilities and Said ‘Land Line’ Number 254385 was out of service since 03.05.2013 to 07.01.2014. The complainant has claimed that he lodged complainant on 04.05.2013 over telephone and then on 23.05.2013 in writing and also on 12.06.2013 the West Dinajpur Chamber of Commerce by a letter made a request to the O.P. No. 1 to take necessary steps in that regard. It has been further claimed by the complainant that he is a professional engage in Management Consultancy Service providing service of management related consultancy for various Govt. supported projects to his Govt. and Non-Govt. clients spread across the country, so the telephone with ‘Broad Band’ service is/was essential and inevitable to him for smooth operation of his profession as most of the communications with his client is made through FAX and Internet Facilities. This case of the complainant has not been denied by the contesting O.P. No. 1 by adducing any evidence. So we find nothing to disbelieve this specific case of the complainant. Considering the nature of job of the complainant we find that within the period from 03.05.2013 to 07.01.2014 the complainant suffered mental agony,hurresment and also suffered loss economically. The contesting O.P. No. 1 has claimed that due to road widening work causing badly damage of U/G Cable between Raiganj Siliguri More to Karnajora by PWD the service of telephone number 03523- 254385 along with other telephone connections got interrupted. The O.P. No. 1 has adduced no evidence in support of this case. For argument sake if this case of the O.P. No. 1 is believed, it could not be said that the O.Ps. being service providers would gate get unlimited time to restore the service. There was so many means to restore the service under the modern technology based Telecom Service but the O.Ps. neglected to adopt such technology and allowed the complainant to suffer loss as mentioned. In view of our above discussions we hold that the claim of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- per month for the period from 03.05.2013 to 07.01.2014 is justified.
The complainant has further case that he had been using one land line and two mobile cellular connections by paying total charges not exceeding Rs. 2,000/- but in such period due to non operation of Land Line No. 254385, he was forced to use his mobile more for internet and according he had to pay excess amount of Rs. 9,303/- Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant especially his examination in chief with annexure submitted on 06.01.2014, we are of the opinion that the complainant was forced to use internet through mobile and to pay Rs. 9,303/- as excess charge which he had not to pay if the Land Line No. 254385 was in operation and also the complainant was forced to come before this Forum for relief, Incurring money. For the negligence and deficiency in service as mentioned above, the O.Ps. are liable to pay an amount as compensation, excess charge of Rs. 9,303/- and litigation cost, to the complainant.
In view of the discussions held herein before we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 16,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and monetary loss suffered, to pay Rs. 9,303/- as excess charge paid and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost. Thus the case succeeds.
Fees paid is correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case being No. 69/2013 be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No. 1 and ex parte against the rest without cost.
that the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay Rs. 16,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand) as compensation for mental agony, harassment and monetary loss suffered, to pay Rs. 9,303/- (Rupees Nine Thousand Three Hundred Three) as excess charge paid and to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as litigation cost, to the complainant, the O.Ps. are directed to pay such total amount of Rs. 27,303/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand Three Hundred Three) to the complainant by issuing an A/C Payee Cheque in the name of the complainant within one month from this day failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution against the O.Ps. or any of the O.Ps. in accordance with law.
Copy of this order be supplied to each parties of this case, free of cost.
