BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE
Dated this the 9th February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C. No.259/2013
(Admitted on 23.09.2013)
Mr. K Krishna Bhat,
S/o Keshava Bhat,
Aged about 68 years,
R/at. Door No.4.63(B),
Hasanthadka, Beliyoorkatte Post,
Puttur Tq, D.K.
….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri SD)
VERSUS
General Manager,
B.S.N.L.
Old Kent Road,
Mangalore 1.
….......OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri BNK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR:
- 1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties claiming certain reliefs to repair and restore telephone connection to the telephone No.286682, to pay Rs.10,000/ towards compensation and to pay Rs.10,000/ as expenses.
2. In support of the above complaint Mr. K Krishna Bhat filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked at Ex.C1 to C5 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Mr. Keshava (RW1) AGM, (HR&A) BSNL, also filed affidavit evidence and not replied to the interrogatories served on him.
The brief facts of the case are as under
We have perused the complaint and the version of the parties. This dispute is with regard to the land line telephone fault service not attended properly and the telephone connection not restored. The complainant alleges that his land line telephone is not working since 01.05.2013. He had complained to opposite party number of times but not repaired the land line telephone connection and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party contested the case and submits that whenever the complainant given complaint they have attended the telephone and now also the telephone is working. Opposite party continues to state that the telephone connection is now out going barred due to not paying the telephone dues to the tune of ₹ 460/ which is pending still now. There is no deficiency in service from their part. These are being the facts of the case in resolving this dispute we consider the following
POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION
On close view of the evidence and the documents produced the admitted facts are, the complainant is having the landline connection provided by the opposite party and there is connectivity problem with that land line telephone connection, the complainant informed and registered the complaint several times. It is denied that the complainant is due to the opposite party by ₹ 460/ and it is denied that the telephone line is still working. It is denied by the opposite party that the telephone fault service not attended properly, the telephone line is still not working, and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party also raised the jurisdiction issue that the Forum is not having jurisdiction as per Sec. 7 B of the Indian Telegraph Act. These are being the facts of dispute in our opinion in resolving this dispute we consider following points for adjudication.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer and this Form has jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act 1986?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
- What order?
We have traversed through the evidences and the documents produced. The opposite party not replied the interrogatories served by the complainant. We considered keenly the facts of the case and the facts of law and notes of arguments. Heard the party submissions and answered the above points as under:
- In the affirmative.
- In the negative.
- In the negative.
- As per delivered order.
REASON
POINT NO 1: The complainant produced EX-C 1 and C2 in which it is seen the complainant got connected with the land line No 28668 with opposite party and the opposite party is rendering service of communication to the complainant hence he is the consumer. As far as jurisdiction is concern the Section 7 b is not applicable on the reason that the opposite party is no more a telegraph authority but only a licensee as per the Indian Telegraph Act. It is already discussed in detail in the citation W.P. (C) 8285/2010 & C.M. No.21319/2010JK MITTAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS by Honourable Delhi High court and in another BSNL vs Smt. Betty Sebastian on 25 February, 2014 decided by the Honourable State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shilong. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is a consumer and this Forum has jurisdiction to try this dispute and the answer to point no 1 in the affirmative.
POINT NO 2 & 3: In quintessence the dispute is the opposite party has not provided service in repairing the faulty land line connection provided to the complainant, and the telephone line is not working still. Opposite party dispute the contention and contends in gist they have attended the faulty line as and when the complainant informed, now the telephone line is working. The complainant had not paid the bill dues amounting to ₹ 460/ hence now the line is kept under outgoing barred. The complainant’s allegation for deficiency in service are, in Para 3 of the complaint “telephone stopped working from 01.05.2013 and immediately opposite party was informed, thereafter the complainant has given complaint on 03.06.2013 as per ref. no18723539732, on 07.06.2013 as per No.18723540369 and on 15.06.2013 as per No 18807727012 and on 16.06.2013 as per 18815373732 to the opposite party, but till today opposite party not repaired and restored the telephone service...further the opposite party is sending bill for the monthly charges of the telephone to the complainant. The opposite party in assailing the complainant allegation states that, the opposite party had booked a complaint and attended as follows. Booked
on 29.04.2013 dkt No 18496457912 attended 01.05.2013
on 03.06.2013 dkt. 18723539732attended 05.06.2013
on 15.06.2013 dkt. 18807727012attended 15.06.2013
on 15.06.2013 dkt. 18815373732attended 25.06.2013
2. The opposite party produced the Annexure 3 numbered as R3 which shows the registered complaint are attended by the opposite party and the complaints are closed. The opposite party also produced the bill for the period from 01.05.2013 to 30.09.2013 numbered as R6 to R10 (Ans 6 to 10) all these bills show there is consumption of units by the complainant telephone. Say 60 units in R6 the bill pertaining to period from 01.05.2013 to 31.05.2013, and 9 units in R7 bill period 01.06.2013 to 30.06.2013, and 149 units in R8 bill period 01.07.2013 to 31.07.2013 and 115 units inR9 bill period 01.08.2013 to 31.08.2013 and 25.units in R10 period 01.09.2013 to 30.09.2013{line suspended for outgoing on 20.09.2013 as per R1 (Anex-1)}. The R10 bill also shows the cumulative amount due as ₹ 460/. The opposite party produced the Anex-2 numbered as R2 details of Repeat Fault/Complaint report. It shows in Sr. no 12 the complainant phone number attended 4 times from the date 01.05.2013 to 26.10.2013. So the undisputed fact is the complainant not registered any complaint with opposite party for fault repair during the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.09.2013 and had used the telephone by consuming 149,115 and 25 units in R8 to R10 telephone bills.
3. From the above facts and figures it is established that the complainant telephone was attended and the phone worked till 20.09.2013 and from 20.09.2013 onwards the outgoing barred for default in payment of bill amounting to ₹ 460/ The complainant contention that the phone still not working since 16.06.2013 and the complaint registered under the dkt numbers stated above are not attended, is unacceptable. In our view the opposite party has disconnected the outgoing facility since the complainant not paid the dues. We do not see any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. We also seen in the bills produced the complainant has been allowed some discount in all the bills and the opposite party
claims this discounts is for the non-working days due to fault in line. Hence we answered the point no 2 in the negative and so also the point no 3 in the negative.
POINT NO 4: In the result of the above discussion and points adjudicated as above we deliver the following
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 7 directly typed by member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 9th February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(SRI T.C. RAJASHEKAR) (SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Additional Bench, Mangalore Additional Bench, Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. K Krishna Bhat
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 01.02.2013: Original bill issued by the OP
Ex.C2: 27.03.2013: Original Receipt for the payment of the above bill
Ex.C3: 02.08.2013: O/c of the regd. Lawyer’s notice
Ex.C4: 26.07.2013: Original bill issued by the OP
Ex.C5: 03.08.2013: postal Acknowledgement
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 Mr. Keshava (RW1) AGM, (HR&A) BSNL
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 09.02.2017 MEMBER
