The complainant’s counsel Sri. B.S.R has filed the complaintunder section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the OP for deficiency of service and prays for directing the OP to repair the telephone bearing No.265700, and also to grant damages of Rs.10,000/- and also the cost of the proceedings.
The brief facts of the complaint are the complainant is a resident of Niduvattu Village which is 12 kms from Madikeri.The complainant had obtained telephone connection to his house vide telephone No.265700 from the OP and was regularly paying the telephone bills till date and there is no due from the complainant to the OP. The complainant states that about six months his telephone is not working and he had given several complaints to the OP but still the OP had not repaired the above said telephone.Again on 29/04/2015 another complaint was given to the OP, to which OP had not taken an action and due to this the complainant has suffered a lot.The complainant states that there is no due to the OP till date and hence, the OP is liable to refund the amount paid.Hence, the complainant approached this Forum seeking remedy.
After the admission of the complaint notice was issued to the OP by RPAD.The notice was duly served and counsel Sri.KDD appeared on behalf of OP and filed their version.The OP admits that the complainant is the consumer of the OP, since 2000 with the telephone No.265700.The OP has stated that the complainant has not been paying telephone bills regularly.The OP states that the premises of the complainant is about 7 kms away from the OP’s telephone exchange and the connection is provided to the complainant through underground telephone cables and over head telephone wires.The OP states that the said telephone of the complainant worked smoothly till November 2014 and no complaint was received by the OP from the complainant.
The OP states that during the month of November 2014 the telephone cables of 200 pairs, 50 pairs and 20 pairs were damaged due to the road widening work undertaken by the local bodies.The OP states that due to this about 10 telephone connections were fully damaged and became out of service.The OP states that the said road work and other utilities like drainage, water pipe works are still going on so the damaged telephone cables could not be restored and it is impossible to be restored until the entire road work is completed.The OP states that the telephone cables are fully damaged and restoration is very expensive which may cost Rs.9,00,000/- to the OP for restoration of the 10 damaged telephone connections.The OP further has stated that there is shortage of telephone cables in the OP’s department and so it cannot be restored.
The OP states that the allegations of the complainant in the complaint are all false, baseless and imaginary.The OP states that, they had responded immediately to the complainant and had taken all the possible efforts to restore the telephone connection of the complainant but due to heavy damages incurred to the telephone cables the OP could not repair it.The OP states that they undertake to give rebate on the rental of the complainant’s telephone line for the period from which it went out of service.
The OP further states that the complainant has not sustained any loss or damage as alleged in the complaint, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP to the complainant and so the complainant is not entitled to have any relief and hence, it is liable to be dismissed.
The following points arise for consideration.
Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service against the OP and whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
To what order the party is entitled?
Our findings on the afore said points are as follows;
Point No.1:- In the affirmative
Point No.2:- As per order.
R E A S O N S
Point No.1:- The counsel for the complainant in his complaint has stated that the telephone No.265700 had not been working properly since past six months and on 29/04/2015 a complaint had been given the OP to repair the same but no action had been taken up by the OP.
The OP in their version and in their affidavit have admitted the complainant as their consumer since the year 2000 and have also admitted that the said telephone of the complainant was not working after November 2014 due to the road widening work undertaken by the local bodies because of which 10 telephone connection were fully damaged and became out of service. The OP in their version have stated that the non-repair of the telephone connection of the complainant was not intentional but beyond the control of the OP. The OP has further submitted in their written argument, affidavit and version that they undertake to give rebate on the rental of the telephone line of the complainant for the period from which it was out of service.
The complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the letter written by the complainant to the OP requesting the OP to get the telephone line repaired dated 29/04/2015 and also the receipt for the payment of bill dated 06/02/2016.The documentary evidence placed on record fully corroborates the case of the complainant.The OP cannot shed its responsibilities by blaming the local bodies and the OP is bound to render their services to the complainant.Hence, there is nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence supported by documents.
In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his case as made out in the complaint by placing sufficient materials on record.The OP is directed to repair the telephone bearing No.265700 of the complainant and to give rebate on the rental of the telephone bearing No.265700 for the period from which it was out of service on the production of the receipt of payment of bills by the complainant.The OP is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.Accordingly we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2:- In view of our findings on point no.1, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
The complaint filed under section 12 of the CP Act by Sri.A.T. Madappa on 06/05/2015 against BSNL Kodagu, Madikeri by its Executive Engineer, Padmavathi Complex, Gowli Street, Madikeri is hereby allowed.
The OP is hereby directed to repair the telephone bearing No.265700 of the complainant and to give rebate on the rent of the telephone bearing No.265700 for the period from which it was out of service on the production of the receipts of payment of bills by the complainant.
The OP is also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainant and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.The OP is directed to comply with the aforesaid orders within a period of 30 daysfrom the date of receipt of copy of this order and in failure to comply with the afore said orders within the stipulated period of 30 days, the OP’s are liable to pay Rs.100/- per day from the date of this order till the date of compliance of the afore said order.
The complainant is also at liberty to file private complaint against the OP for violation of this order for the offences punishable under section 27 of CP Act, which is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Issue certified copies of this order at free of cost to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 20th day of April 2016)
