IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2016
Filed on 28.03.2015
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.98/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Sivanandhan 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
S/o Vasudevan represented by its Chief General
Shyamrangam, Panayil P.O. Manager (Kerala State)
Nooranadu, Palamel Village Office of the Chief General
Mavelikara – 690 504 Manager of BSNL
Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001
2. The General Manager, BSNL
O/o the General Manager
Alappuzha – 688 001
3. S.D.E. of Telephones BSNL
O/o the S.D.E. of Telephones
Nooranadu – 690 504
4. Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL
Palamel Office, Erumakkuzhy
Nooranadu – 690 504
(By Adv. Hemalatha – for
Opposite parties)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant is a land line customer of opposite party. From October 2013 onwards, the land line connection of the complainant was not functioning and he informed it to the office of the 4th opposite party and the land line Supervisor was appointed to rectify the defects, but he reported that it was due to the fault of the BSNL system and only the highly qualified technician can cure the fault. Thereafter complainant repeated his requests several times. On 12.5.2014 complainant wrote a letter for a permanent solution of his problem to the second opposite party. Again on 1.7.2014 complainant wrote a detailed complaint to the first opposite party. Lastly on 11.10.2014 an Advocate notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to look after and rectify the complaint of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows:-
It is true that second opposite party has received legal notice dated 11.10.2014. Immediately after receiving the legal notice, the second opposite party enquired about the complaint and came to know that there was any technical fault as alleged in the legal notice. After a detailed enquiry it is understand that the line disconnection was only due to the non-payment of bill amount and not due to any technical fault. This was duly informed vide letter dated 1.12.2014 itself. So there was absolutely no deficiency of service from the part of these opposite parties.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A14. ExtA1 is the true copy of the letter dated 23.11.2013 sent by the complainant to the S.D.E., Telephone Exchange, Nooranadu, Ext.A2 is the true copy of the letter dated 28.2.2014 sent by the complainant to the General Manager, BSNL, Alappuzha, Ext.A3 is the true copy of the letter dated 12.5.14, Ext.A4 is the true copy of the postal receipt, Ext.A5 is the true copy of the acknowledgement card, Ext.A6 is the true copy of the letter dated 1.7.2014 sent by the complainant to the C.G.M.T., BSNL, Ext.A7 is the true copy of the fax receipt dated 1.7.15, Ext.A8 is the true copy of the legal notice dated 11.10.14 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ext.A9 series are the acknowledgment cards (4 Nos.), Ext.A10 is the true copy of the letter dated 8.1.15
sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, Ext.A11 is the original postal receipt, Ext.A12 is the acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.), Ext.A13 is the copy of the information under RTI Act, 2005 dated 3.9.15 and Ext.A14 and A14(a) are the bill and receipt. Third opposite party was examined as RW1.
4. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
5. It is an admitted fact that the BSNL telephone connection is allotted to the complainant. According to the complainant his telephone connection was disconnected from October, 2013. Complainant alleged in the complaint that he informed the matter before the opposite parties several times and they failed to rectify the defect. Thereafter complainant sent letters dated 23.11.2013, 28.2.14, 12.5.14 and 1.7.14 to the opposite parties stating the complaint of his telephone. Exts.A1 to A6 evidenced the same. Lastly on 11.10.2014 complainant sent legal notice to the opposite parties. In the version opposite parties admitted that they have received a legal noticed dated 11.10.2014. According to the opposite parties after receiving the legal notice, the second opposite party enquired about the complaint and came to know that there was any technical fault and the line was disconnected due to the nonpayment of bill amount. Ext.A13 is the information received under RTI Act 2005, on the basis of the application submitted by the complainant dated 20.8.15. On perusal of the said document we came to se that complainant had paid the bill amount till 5.11.13. While cross examining the RW1 he stated that, “2013—October, November2014 January 24-” Ext.A14 is the bill issued to the complainant for the period from 1.8.2013 to 30.9.2013. The payment due date shown is 26.10.2013. Ext.A14(a) is the receipt dated 5.11.13 for the payment done by the complainant. No evidence produced by the opposite party to prove that complainant has not paid the bill from October onwards. According to the complainant his phone was disconnected from October 2013 onwards. Even though it was not functioning, the opposite party had adjusted the bill amount from the deposit of the complainant from 5.12.2013 till 1.4.15. Ext.A13 page No.4 evidenced the same. While cross examining the opposite party he also admitted this. From the evidence on record it is clear that complainant’s phone was disconnected from October, 2013, without giving notice. The opposite party had adjusted the bill from the deposit of the complainant till 1.4.2015. Hence the contention of the opposite party that the phone was disconnected due to the nonpayment of the bill is not sustainable. The opposite parties had no right to take the bill amount from the complainant’s deposit without giving connection to the complainant. Exts.A1 to A8 show that complainant had made so many efforts to bring the matter before the opposite parties, but no response from the opposite parties to solve the complaint of the complainant. The opposite parties did not take steps to repair the telephone line. The opposite parties could not produce satisfactory reply or evidence to support their case about the nonpayment of the bill. Hence the Forum is the opinion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties to take steps to rectify the telephone of the complainant. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC)=AIR 1994 SC787, explaining the social evils that arise from arbitrary and capricious exercise of power in the following words, in para 10:
“A public functionary if he acts maliciously or oppressively and the exercise of power results in harassment and agony then it is not an exercise of power but its abuse. No law provides protection against it. He who is responsible for it must suffer it…….Harassment of a common man by public authorities is socially abhorring and legally impermissible. It may harm him personally but the injury to society is far more grievous. Crime and corruption thrive and prosper in the
society due to lack of public resistance. Nothing is more damaging than the feeling of helplessness.” The circumstances before us are similar. The above observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is similarly applicable in this case. Since the deficiency in service is well established, the complainant is entitled to get compensation.
In the result, the complaint is allowed:-
- The opposite party is directed to give reconnection to the complainant within one week from the date of receipt of this order.
- The opposite party is directed to cancel the bills during the period of disconnection and to refund the amount deducted from the security deposit towards the phone bill during such period.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sivanandan (Witness)
ExtA1 - True copy of the letter dated 23.11.2013 sent by the complainant to the S.D.E., Telephone Exchange, Nooranadu,
Ext.A2 - True copy of the letter dated 28.2.2014 sent by the complainant to the General Manager, BSNL, Alappuzha
Ext.A3 - True copy of the letter dated 12.5.14
Ext.A4 - True copy of the postal receipt
Ext.A5 - True copy of the acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - True copy of the letter dated 1.7.2014 sent by the complainant to the C.G.M.T., BSNL
Ext.A7 - True copy of the fax receipt dated 1.7.15
Ext.A8 - True copy of the legal notice dated 11.10.14 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ext.A9 series- Acknowledgment cards (4 Nos.)
Ext.A10 - True copy of the letter dated 8.1.15 sent by the complainant to the opposite parties
Ext.A11 - Original postal receipt
Ext.A12 - Acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.)
Ext.A13 - Copy of the information under RTI Act, 2005 dated 3.9.15
Ext.A14 & A14(a)- Bill and receipt
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Radhakrishnan (Witness)
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
