IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 12th day of August, 2016
Filed on 30.11.2010.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No. 325/2010
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Sri. K. Varghese 1. General Manager,
Nellitharayil Veedu BSNL
Olakettiyambalam Pitchu Iyer Jn.
Mavelikara – 690510. Alappuzha.
(By Adv. Joykutty Jose)
2. Sub Division Engineer
BSNL
Mavelikara.
(By Adv. Cheriyan Kuruvila)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
This is a remanded matter. The case was once heard and the President of the then Forum passed an order on 30.01.2012 as allowed. Since there was no detailed order, Honorable State Commission Suomoto taken up the matter and remanded the case for hearing for the purpose of passing a speaking order. After remanded, notices were issued to both parties for hearing the matter.
2. The case of the complainant in short is as follows:
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has availed a Land Line Connection from the opposite parties with No. 2307915 and has also availed a Broad Band Connection. The said Telephone Connection and the Broad Band Connection became functionless on 2010 May 25. The complainant has reported the complaint before the opposite parties and the opposite party informed the complainant that it was due to the fault of the cable and assured to make the connection live within a few days. Thereafter a complainant contacted the opposite parties over telephone many times, but the connection was reinstated only on July 8 2010. But the opposite parties has issued bill for the month when the phone was totally out of order. Thereafter a complainant has forwarded an application before the S D E Mavelikara to cancel the Broad Band connection, but the said connection was cancelled only in the month of October and the opposite party issued bill for the Broad Band connection which was already cancelled and the complainant has not paid the bill amount and the opposite parties disconnected the connection. The complainant was met with an accident and was admitted at Amrita Hospital since the telephone was disconnected, the complainant was not in a position to contact his family members. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
3. Versions of the opposite parties are as follows.
The complaint is not maintainable. The dispute in the above complaint between the complainant and the respondents is concerning telegraphic line, appliances and apparatus provided by BSNL to the complainant. It is a dispute to be decided by the arbitrator appointed as provided us 7B of the Telegraph Act. Since the services relating to the telephone and broad band are subject to the provisions of the Telegraph Act, the dispute involved in the above matter has to be decided by an arbitrator and not by this Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. The opposite parties gain a rebate for an amount of Rs.1958/- have been allowed to the complainant in the bill amount payable by him for the month on May, June, July and August 2010 for Broad Band and Telephone. This amount has been adjusted in the bill dated 7.10.2010 and 7.12.2010. The balance amount payable by the complainant is only Rs.271/- but the complainant has not paid the amount hence BSNL was constrained to disconnect the phone connection provided to the complainant. The Broad Band connection provided to the complainant was also disconnected on 7.7.2009. The allegation of the complainant that the phone was not working on and after 25.5.2010 it is not correct as per the details the fault reported on 27.5.2010 and was cleared on 2.6.2010. The next fault was reported on 25.6.2010 and was cleared on 2.7.2010. The faults reported were handled by BSNL without any delay. The broad band connection provided to the complainant was disconnected soon after getting proper instructions. As per the prevailing practice, in order to get disconnection, the customer shall remit the entire arrears to clear the pending bills served by BSNL. The disputes, if any regarding the bill, will be settled later. As far as the complainant is concerned, the BSNL has provided a rebate of Rs.1,958.4/- from the bills served on him considering his complaints, but without admitting it on merits. The averment of the complainant that he was admitted in a hospital at Ernakulum after an accident has no relevancy to the above dispute preferred before this Hon’ble forum regarding the faulty phone. Since the BSNL has provided a rebate of Rs.1958/- to the complainant he is not entitled to get the relief that are prayed for in the complaint. Hence the complaint may be dismissed.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 to A9 were marked. Ext.A1 is the reply given by the Senior Accounts Officer BSNL dated 10.9.2010. Ext.A2 is the letter given by the complainant to the opposite party dated 27.8.2010. Ext.A3 is the discharge summary dated 18.7.2010. Ext.A4 is the letter issued from Amrita Institute of Medical Science dated 25.7.2010. Ext.A5 is the request for X-ray examination dated 13.6.2010 issued from Pushpagiri Medical College Hospital Thiruvalla. Ext.A6 is the cash receipt. Ext.A7 is the bill issued by the opposite party dated 7.10.2010. Ext.A8 is the call details of telephone no.2307915for a period from 1.5.2010 to 20.7.2011. Ext.A9 is the call details of telephone no.2307915 for a period from 25.5.2010 to 20.7.2011. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents B1 to B7 were marked. One witness was examined as RW2. Ext.B1 is the bill dated 7.6.2010. Ext.B2 is the bill dated 7.8.2010. Ext.B3 is the bill dated 7.10.2010. Ext.B4 is the bill dated 7.12.2010. Ext.B5 is the subscriber fault card. Ext.B6 is the letter dated 7.12.2011 issued by the Chief Accounts Officer. Exts B7 is the call details.
5. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite parties the Forum has raised the following issues for consideration.
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief sought for?
6. The case of the complainant is that his Land Line Connection as well as the Broad Band Connection became faulty during the period of 25th May 2010 to 8th July 2010. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party many times for getting it repaired but the connection was reinstated only on July 8. The opposite parties issued bill for the period when the phone was completely out of order. More over the complainant was hospitalized during that period and since the phone was not working he was not in a position to contact his family members and the complainant sustained much mental agony and inconvenience. Hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties.
7. According to the opposite party they had given a discount of Rs.1,597/- in the bill amount as per the request of the complainant and the amount to be paid by the complainant is only Rs.271/- and the complainant has not paid the amount. So the telephone connection was disconnected. The highlighting point contented by the complainant for alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is that the opposite party has charged bill amount when the phone was totally functionless and also there was a considerable delay in rectifying the defect. Ext.A9 and B7 shows that the phone was completely faulty during the month of June. On a perusal of Ext.A1 document it can be see that in between 29.05.2010 and 3.7.2010 there was no outgoing calls and the only one incoming call is on 24.6.2010. On a perusal of Ext.B7 document no calls are reported in between 22.5.2010 to 6.7.2010. Ext.A9 and B7 clearly shows that the complainant’s phone was totally functionless during the month of June and the subscriber was not in a position to use the telephone during that period. According to the complainant he has made much effort for getting the phone repaired but the opposite parties has not taken any earnest effort in rectifying the defect on time. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party has charged for Broad Band connection even after cancellation. The opposite party in their version admitted that the Broad Band connection has been cancelled on 7.7.2010 but the bill dated 7.12.2010 shows that the opposite party has been charged for the Broad Band connection . The complainant claimed for a total compensation of Rs.76,000/-. The documents produced would show that the complainant met with an accident during the month of June 2010 and on that time the phone was faulty and the complainant was not in a position to contact his family members. The considerable delay in rectifying the defect of the telephone amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant filed this complaint for discount of the bill amounts along with compensation. The opposite party in Ext.B6 stated that they have given a rebate of Rs.1,597/- in the bill amount. Since the deficiency in service has well established the complainant is entitled to get compensation.
In the result, complaint allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and the opposite parties further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 12th day of August, 2016.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix
Evidence of the Complainants:
PW1 - Kurian Varghese (witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the acknowledgement letter of complaint
Ext.A2 - Copy of the complaint
Ext.A3 - Discharge summary dated 14.07.2010
Ext.A4 - Copy of the Authorization for Emergency Admission
Ext.A5 - Request for X-ray examination dated 13.6.2010
Ext.A6 - Copy of the bill for Rs.5,000/- dated 13.6.2010
Ext.A7 - Copy of the telephone bill for amount of Rs.271/-
Ext.A8 - Call details of 2307915 for the period from 1.5.2010 to 20.7.2011
Ext.A9 - Call details of 2307915 for the period from 25.5.2010 to 20.7.2011
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Sreedharan K. (witness)
RW2 - Sri. Pradeep R. ,SDE, BSNL, Kayamkulam (witness)
Ext.B1 - Telephone bill from 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2010
Ext.B2 - Telephone bill from 1.7.2010 to 31.7.2010
Ext.B3 - Telephone bill from 1.9.2010 to 30.9.2010
Ext.B4 - Telephone bill from 22.10.2010 to 30.11.2010
Ext.B5 - Subscriber Fault Card-Mavelikara 2307915
Ext.B6 - Copy of the letter from Telecom General Manager for rebate of Broad Band rebate
Ext.B7 - Call details of 2307915 from 01.5.2010 to 28.8.2010
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: pj/-
Comped . by:
