OFFICE  OF  THE  DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI

C.C.62/2012

Present:-

          1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S.      - President

          2) Smti.Archana Deka Lahkar      - Member

         Dr(Mrs) Meena Barkataki

         Associate Professor

         R/O-H.No-1, Vidyamandir path, Bye lane -5,

         Borsojai, Guwahati-781029

                                        VS

1. Chief Accounts Officer (T.R.-1),Office of the General manager, BSNL, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001
2. SDO (Dispur-II),Dispur Telephone Exchange,Guwahati-781006
3. JTO, Basistha Telephone Exchange, Basistha,Guwahati-781028
4. Sr. Accounts Officer, BSNL Administrative Building,Office of the General Manager, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001
5. P.G.Nodal Officer, DE(Admn), BSNL Administrative Building, Office of the General Manager, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001
6. SDE(Public Grievance), BSNL Administrative Building, Office of the General Manager, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001
7. DE (PG), Office of the CGMT ,BSNL Administrative Building, Panbazar, Guwahati-781001
8. DE(EXT-II), Dispur Telephone Exchange,Guwahati-781006
9. SDE(Broadband),Dispur Telephone Exchange,Guwahati-781006

Appearance-        

                   Mr. Nairit  Barkataki attorney for the complainant side.

                   Date of argument-         03.03.2017

                   Date of judgment-         01.06.2017

EXPARTE JUDGMENT

THIS IS A PROCEEDING U/S-12  OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

1. The complaint filed by Dr(Mrs) Meena Borkataky against Chief Accounts Officer (T.R.-1), O/O- The General Manager,BSNL, Panbazar,Guwahati-781001 and 8 others was admitted on 19-10-2012 and notices were served upon the opposite parties by issuing notice by classified advertisement  in local news paper  and opposite party side also appeared on 11-01-2013 and filed a petition No-38/2013 on the day regarding maintainability of the case and this forum after hearing both the parties vide its order dtd.08-04-2015 decided that the complaint as filed is maintainable and also directed the opposite party side to file written statement . But the opposite party side did not appear to  take step nor file written statement and in result  this forum vide order   dtd 17-03-16 directed that the case against the opposite parties  will proceed on exparte. Thereafter, Mr Nairit Barkataki , attorney of the complainant has filed his affidavit and and also filed his written argument on 22-07-2016. Finally on 03-03-2017 we heard oral argument of Mr Nairit  Barkataki and today we deliver our exparte judgment, which is as below:
2.  The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of BSNL since 05/08/1999 bearing telephone number 2306310 and from that time she used the telephone and cleared up her dues regularly against every bill. From the early part of 2011 the telephone of the complainant started becoming dead frequently and from the month of June,2011 the aforesaid telephone became completely dead. The complainant gave numerous complaints in this connection but nothing happened still, the complainant paid the telephone bills regularly . The last bill was paid on 14/08/2011. The complainant never got any bill for the last three years but even then as it is her liability she used to pay bills. The complainant registered many complaints against the dead telephone line but nothing happened. The last complaint was made through IVR at 198 on 24/08/2011. The complainant received a message in September,2011 in  her mobile asking her to pay Rs.29,843/- for the period 01/08/2011 to 31/08/2011 . The complainant met the Accounts Officer and found that her telephone bill came down to Rs.12,855.79/- which was also not acceptable. The complainant asked them to give the complete details of the aforesaid  charge which was completely ignored. The complainant received a letter from the O.P.No-1 in the 1^st week of January. The complainant sent a reply on 03/02/2012. That in the month of November,2011, the connection of the already dead telephone was disconnected . The  complainant again received a legal notice on 05/07/2012 asking her to pay Rs.14,958/-. The opposite parties did not settle the grievances and thereby they committed deficiency of service towards her. So, she prays for directing the opposite parties to pay her Rs.50,000/- on account of cost sustained by the complainant in transportation and telecommunication. Compensation for mental agony of Rs.20,000/- and cost of complaint petition etc.. Rs.10,000/-.
3. We have perused the evidence of the complainant as well as documents filed. From Exhibit-I it is seen that the complainant Dr(Mrs) Meena Barkataki authorise her son Sri Nairit Barkataki as her true and lawful attorney to plead this case. From Exhibit-I(a) and I(b), it is seen that the complainant put her signature on Exhibit-I special power of Attorney.

From Exhibit-II, which is a receipt for payment of bills, it is seen that the complainant had paidRs.656/- on 14/08/2011.

From Exhibit-III, which is Manual for Consumers’ Education and Prevention of their grievances,it is seen that mission of BSNL formed on October,2000 is to provide world class state of art technology telecom services to its consumers on demand at competitive prices; to provide world class telecom infrastructure in its area of operation and to contribute to the growth of the country’s economy.

From Exhibit-IV , which is a bill of Rs.29,843.44/- for the period from 01/08/2011 to 31/08/2011 dtd.17/09/2011 , it is seen that Rs.29,843.44/- came down to Rs.12,854.79/-(say Rs.12,855) .

From Exhibit-V, which is the copy of the letter addressed to Mrs Meena Barkataki from the Opp. Party No-1 regarding unpaid dues against BSNL Fixed Phone No-03612306310 .

From Exhibit-VI(a) which is the reply to the Opp. Party No-1. It is seen that the complainant wrote to the opp. party about her grievances in connection with the quality of service of BSNL .The complainant mentioned about long time non workability of her telephone, an absured bill amount, refusal of rebate on rental , ignoring registration of the complaint, non delivery of bills. Exhibit-VI(b) is the copy of speed post receipt that the complainant sent her letter through speed post service.

4. We have found that the complainant’s duly constituted attorney,Sri Nairit Barkataki , in his evidence, states that the complainant is an ailing lady  and she is a consumer of BSNL  since 05/08/1999 bearing telephone No-2306310 and from that time she used the telephone  and cleared up  her dues regularly  against  each and  every bill. We have found from evidence that the last bill  was paid on 14/08/2011 and that from the early part of 2011 the telephone  of the complainant  started  becoming dead frequently  and from the month of June,2011 the aforesaid  telephone  became  completely dead. The complainant lodged numerous complaints before the opp .party but nothing was done by them. So, we hold that such  reluctance  on the part of  the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service towards  the complainant . The  mission of the  Manual  for Consumers’ Education and Prevention of their grievances (i.e. Exhibit –III) is denied / ignored by the opposite parties. We have found that the complainant’s attorney states in his evidence that the complainant received a message on September,2011 in her mobile asking her to pay Rs.29,843/- for the period of 01/08/2011 to 31/08/2011(i.e. Exhibit-IV) and the complainant went to the BSNL office at Panbazar and met the Accounts Officer to enquire about it and she was asked to come after two days; and after two days when she visited BSNL office, Panbazar the telephone bill came down to Rs.12,855.79/-and she asked the authority to give details of the aforesaid charge which was completely ignored. We hold such act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service towards the complainant. We have found that the said attorney in his evidence states that the complainant received a letter from Opp. Party No-1 in the 1^st week of January,2012 asking her to clearup the unpaid bill (i.e. Exhibit-V) and then she sent a reply on 03/02/2012 expressing her bitterness against the quality of service of BSNL and Exhibit VI(a) is the said letter, but in the month of November , 2011 the telephone was disconnected but the telephone bills were being sent regularly.

           So we hold that for non functioning of the telephone inspite of paying telephone bills regularly and inspite of registering numerous complaints, not providing in detail usage charge of the bill( Exhibit-IV), amounts to deficiency of service towards the complainant .

Because of what has been discussed as above the complaint against all the opp. parties is allowed on exparte and they are directed to pay her Rs.20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) as compensation for committing deficiency of service to her and putting her in mental agony and also to pay her Rs.10,000/-(Ten thousand) as cost of the proceeding, to which all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable. They are directed to satisfy the award within 45 days from the date of delivery of this judgment, and in default , it shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint.

 Given under our hand and seal of the District Forum, Kamrup,  this the   1^st June,2017.

      (Smti A.D. Lahkar  )                                             (Md.S.Hussain)

               Member                                                            President