Dekamada M.Madhukumar filed a consumer case on 22 Oct 2008 against General Manager, BSNL in the Kodagu Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/78 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
Karnataka
Kodagu
CC/08/78
Dekamada M.Madhukumar - Complainant(s)
Versus
General Manager, BSNL - Opp.Party(s)
In person
22 Oct 2008
ORDER
THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Shekar Complex, Mahadevapet, Madikeri-571201(Karnataka) consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/78
Dekamada M.Madhukumar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
General Manager, BSNL Junior Telecom Officer,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. A.S.Hemalatha 2. K.S.Prasad 3. M.R.Devappa
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
order dated 16-09-2008 O R D E R M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows; 1. That the complainant is the permanent resident of Thavalageri Village of Virajpet Taluk and he is having a telephone connection to his house which was installed in the year 2000 having the telephone number 08274246590. That his telephone had gone out of order from 28th June 2008 to 12th July 2008 and again 19-07-2008 to 13-08-2008 for which he was compelled to make a complaint on 19-07-2008 at Srimangala telephone exchange and also had discussion with the concerned and inspite of it no positive development took place. 2. That on 13-08-2008 the complainant wrote a complaint to the BSNL Grievances Cell Bangalore with a request to give directions to the concerned officials to take necessary steps to effect repairs on the said telephone and even then no positive steps were taken by any one. 3. That the complainant received telephone bill dated 16-06-2008 for Rs.390/- and it was mentioned in the bill that if the bill is not paid within 9th, telephone connections will be disconnected on 9th September which clearly show that they are negligent and are in deficient of their service. 4. That the complainant has paid the last bill of Rs.398/- but yet he is not getting proper service from opposite party no.1 and 2. 5. The complainant has prayed for following relief; a) Directions to opposite party to repair the telephone line / instrument and compensation for causing mental agony and hardship. 6. The complainant has enclosed the telephone bill pertaining to 1st June to 31st July 2008 and the copy of the complaint sent to Bangalore. 7. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to OP 1 and OP 2 namely the General Manager, BSNL Madikeri, Junior Telecom Engineer, BSNL Virajpet Taluk. In response to the notice OP 1 and 2 have appeared through their advocate and have filed their version and affidavit evidence and taken following contentions. 1. The complaint is not maintainable in law nor in facts. 2. That the allegations made by the complainant that his telephone was out of order for a long time, despite request his telephone was not set-right, and he suffered loss, damage and agony are all denied as false. 3. That it is true that the telephone connection of the complainant had some problems but it was not due to any negligence of the opposite party but due to technicalities and due to problem in the cables and transmission and in the exchange the complainants telephone did not work properly for some time, but at present entire technical problem has been set-right and the telephone of the complainant is now working in perfect condition. 4. For the foregoing reasons O.Ps pray for the dismissal of the complaint. 8. The opposite party has also reiterated what is stated in the version even in the affidavit evidence. 9. The complainant was directed to file his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief but has not been attending the Forum since three hearing dates and has not filed the affidavit. 10. However on 03-10-2008 complainant was present and submitted that telephone service is restored and the same has been working properly. But however he took time to mention the same in the affidavit but has not been attending the Forum subsequently. 11. The following issues arise for determination. 1. Whether the opposite party no.1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service on their part? 2. To what order ? R E A S O N S 12. The main grievance of the complaint is that he has not been getting proper service from the opposite party no.1 and 2, in providing telephone service without interruption and he has been made to pay unnecessary telephone charges without providing proper telephone service during the period mentioned in his complaint. But Junior Telecom Officer has sworn to an affidavit stating that the problems complained by the complainant has been set-right. The Junior Telephone Officer who was present before the Forum under took to provide service uninterruptedly on which day the complainant was also present and submitted that he is getting proper service but however he insisted the opposite party to adjust the telephone charges already collected for future bills, for which the opposite party i.e., Junior Telephone Officer agreed to take necessary action in that regard. Since that date the complainant has not been attending the Forum. It may be presumed that the complainant is satisfied with the service. Nevertheless the complainant was put to mental agony and hardship for not being getting telephone service uninterruptedly. Therefore he has approached this redressal Forum by filling a complaint for which he needs to be compensated and the cost of this proceedings is to be awarded to the complainant. 13. For the foregoing reasons point no.1 is answered positively holding that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service on their part, hence we proceed to pass the following order. O R D E R The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are hereby directed to provide uninterupted telephone service to the complainant and they are further directed to pay the compensation of Rs.500/- for complainant being put to mental agony and hardship and for complainant being driven to the Forum by incurring expenditure, the opposite party no.1 ad 2 are hereby directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The above order shall be complied by the opposite parties within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. Communicate the order to the parties. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 22nd day of October 2008. (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA), PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER