BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 10th of January 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.188/2010
(Admitted on 03.07.2010)
M. Shankara Narayana,
So. Shambhu Upadyaya,
Aged about 60 years,
RA. Prabath Kirana,
Alankar Post, Puttur,
Dakshina Kannada. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.Sanjay D).
VERSUS
General Manager,
Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Old Kent Road,
Mangalore 1. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri.B.Nanda Kishore).
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that, he is the consumer and subscriber of the landline telephone No.263275 for the residential purposes. The above telephone is connected to Opposite Party’s Alankar Exchange. When the matter stood thus, the Complainant has decided to apply for the Broad Band Connection of the Opposite Party and filed an application for Broad Band Connection on 12.10.2009. Thereafter, the staff of the Uppinangady Exchange has visited the Complainant’s premises to verify the place. On 25.11.2009, received a letter from the Opposite Party that it is not feasible to give Broad Band Connection to the Complainant and thereafter the Complainant has addressed a letter dated 11.12.2009 to the Bangalore office of the Opposite Party, despite of that the Opposite Party not given broad band connection. It is stated that, the residence of the Complainant is only 4.5 kms away from Alankar Exchange, the Opposite Party has already given Broad Band Connection to one Mr.Ramaraj who is residing 100 meters away from the Complainant’s house and stated that the Opposite Party without giving Broad Band Connection committed deficiency in service, hence the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to give Broad Band Connection to the Complainant and also claimed Rs.35,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version submitted that, the cable route distance to the sub-office telephone No.AKA 263275 is about 6 kms from Alankar Exchange. On testing for Broad Band Connection it is found DSL (Digital Subscribers Loop) is not supporting to give Broad Band Connection hence it is not feasible for Broad Band and the same has informed to the Complainant. It is stated that, one Mr.Ramaraj telephone No.AKA 263239 the distance is 4765 meters whereas the distance of 263275 is 5770 meters. It is stated that, since the Broad Band Connection is technically not feasible it could not be given to the Complainant and stated that there is no deficiency and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Shankara Narayana (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C11 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.M.Vasudeva Holla (RW1), Assistant General Manager (S & A) of the Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R3 were marked for the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure. Both parties produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Negative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
The facts which are not in dispute is that, the Complainant is the subscriber of the landline telephone No.263275 for the residential purposes.
Now the point in dispute between the parties before this FORA is that, the Complainant applied for Broad Band connection on 12.10.2009 but the Opposite Party not provided broad band connection till this date, hence he came up with this complaint.
The Opposite Party on the other hand contended that, Broad Band connection is not technically feasible hence they cannot provide a Broad Band connection.
The Complainant filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex C1 to C11. Opposite Party also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R3.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, we find that, the Complainant is the subscriber of the landline telephone No.263275, the above said telephone is connected to the Opposite Party’s Alankar Exchange. It could be seen on record that, the Complainant filed a Broad Band application on 12.10.2009 (as per Ex R3). The Ex C2 is the letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party, wherein, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to provide a Broad Band connection but in Ex C4 i.e., the reply given by the Opposite Party dated 25.11.2009 stated as follows:-
“The residence of the Complainant is about 6 kms from Alankar Exchange. It has 5 kms of UG cable, 0.8 of O/H cable laid inside arecanut plant. It has so many joints due to many breakdown, it has 0.2 kms of open wire line with rusty wire. In this condition Broad Band connection may not work properly. The route which suggested for UG cable is required 2.5 kms of cable and it has been categorically stated that, it is technically not feasible and advised the Complainant to take EVDO connection which give 2 Mbps internet access”.
The above said letter clearly reveals that, broad band connection is technically not feasible and may not work properly, thereby advised the Complainant to go for EVDO connection which gives 2 Mbps internet access. The Complainant in his sworn affidavit as well as in pleading and notes of arguments admitted that, the staff of the Uppinangady Exchange of the Opposite Party has visited the Complainant’s premises to verify the place. That means, before sending the reply dated 25.11.2009 the Opposite Party inspected the spot and thereafter informed the Complainant that it is technically not feasible and broad band connection may not work properly. When that being the case, one cannot find fault with the Opposite Party. At the same time we observed that, the Opposite Party not rejected the Broad Band application but it is informed to the Complainant that, it is technically not feasible and it may not work properly because of the problems mentioned in the letter dated 25.11.2009 stated supra and advised the Complainant to go for EVDO connection. By considering the above, the Complainant should have co-operated with the Opposite Party for EVDO connection. The another contention of the Complainant that, one Mr.Ramaraj who is residing nearly 100 meters away from the Complainant’s house has given Broad Band connection which cannot be considered in this case because the cable connection running through the landline of Mr.Ramaraj may be technically feasible compared to the cable connection running through the landline of the Complainant. The each route of the landline has its own pros and cons. Hence, we are of the opinion that, the decision taken by the Opposite Party is correct and there is no lapse on the part of the Opposite Party. Because, after filing the Broad Band application, the staff of the Opposite Party inspected the spot and issued a letter dated 25.11.2009 stating that it is technically not feasible. When that being the case, we do not find any lapse on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant may go for EVDO connection which gives 2 Mbps internet access if they wishes.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 8 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 10h day of January 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri.M.Shankara Narayana – Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 07.04.2010: Telephone bill of the Complainant.
Ex C2 – 14.11.2009: Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C3 – 14.11.2009: Postal acknowledgement (2 in numbers).
Ex C4 – 25.11.2009: Reply of the Opposite Party.
Ex C5 – 11.12.2009: Letter addressed to the Bangalore office of the Opposite Party.
Ex C6 – 11.12.2009: Postal receipt.
Ex C7 – 16.02.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party.
Ex C8 – 10.03.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party for RTI application.
Ex C9 – 30.04.2010: Copy of the registered Lawyer’s notice.
Ex C10 – 03.05.2010: Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C11 – 07.05.2010: Copy of the telephone bill of Sri.Ramaraja Acharya.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Sri.M.Vasudeva Holla, Assistant General Manager (S & A) of the Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 01.07.2010: Reply of the Opposite Party to the Complainant’s advocate.
Ex R2 - : Route map by J.T.O Uppinangady in respect of the Complainant’s telephone.
Ex R3 - : Proforma of application for broad band connection.
Dated:10.01.2011 PRESIDENT
