Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/214/2021

Sukhija Enterprises - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager, O/O Principal General Manager, BSNL - Opp.Party(s)

Gurshant Sukhija

02 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/214/2021
Date of Institution	:	01/04/2021
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2023

 

Sukhija Enterprises, through its Prop. Mr.Harpal Singh, SCO-95, Sector 40C, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

General Manager, O/o Principal General Manager, BSNL, Sector 34, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Party

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gurshant Sukhija, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Harsh Aggarwal, Counsel for OP.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant is a senior citizen who has subscribed to the landline telephone at his address and this subscribed number is managed by OP i.e., BSNL services. The complainant runs a shop at the address and has also availed broadband/internet service at this telephone number managed by OP for his business usage and commercial purposes. The complainant is paying regularly without any default or delay in payment on his part since inception of the connection (Annexure C-1). On 10.09.2020 the broadband/internet and landline connection went out of service, to which the complainant raised a complaint at OP customer care number which was duly registered assuring a speedy resolution. The issue did not get resolved for couple of days, then the complainant again on 12.09.2020 filed a complaint, but that too went in vain as no resolution was provided relating to the same. The complainant made many calls at different complaint numbers of OP, but every time an assurance was provided to the complainant for timely resolution but all the promises proved to be false leaving the complainant feel cheated. During this period of approximately 33 days complainant made at least 10 complaints and numerous other calls at the office of the OP requesting the resumption of service. It is also stated that problem got solved by the OP i.e., after more than 1 month from the first complaint filed by the complainant. It is also submitted that due to non-availability of the services, business of complainant was getting affected severely. The complainant has suffered exorbitant loss due to deprivation, harassment, mental agony and loss of professional practice at OP’s end, for which he is entitled to compensation. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written statement and stated that bare perusal of chart (C-2) would show that those were promptly resolved from time to time at the end of the OP. However, there was shortage of labour & workforce due to Covide-19 pandemic but still the entire wire & apparatus installed at the premises of the complainant was changed and the services were restored. It is also submitted that the OP has already given a rebate of Rs.221/- to the complainant as per the norms. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OP.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     On perusal of the complaint, it is observed that the main grievance of the complainant is that the broadband/internet & landline connection provided by OP went out of service for a period of approximately 33 days, & he could not check emails, online quotation, tenders & bids and he suffered business loss and mental harassment during the intervening period.
7.     On perusal of reply of OP it is observed that, it admitted fact that there were constraints regarding labour/work force due to Covid-19 pandemic and a rebate of Rs.221/- was given. Hence, in view of the above we are of the concerted view that it is an admitted fact that due to non-availability of broadband/internet/ landline connection, complainant suffered harassment, which itself proves that OP was deficient in providing agreed service to the complainant.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment to it;
2. to pay ₹3000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
02/05/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member