DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of June 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President
: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member Date of filing: 26/03/2015
: Sri.V.P.Ananatha Narayanan, Member
(C.C.No.38/2015)
K.A.Stanly james
S/o.Late Angelus,
Roshan,
Aiswarya Colony,
Olavakkode,
Palakkad – 678 002 - Complainant
(By Adv.Pramod.P.K.)
Vs
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.
Rep.by its General Manager,
Office of GMT,
Palakkad – 678 014 - Opposite party
(By Adv.P.K.Devadas)
O R D E R
By Shri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member.
Brief facts of the case.
K.A.Stanly James, the complainant was a subscriber of telephone connection with internet facility from the opposite party. His customer ID was 4013687007 and telephone number was 0491-2552858. He was using the internet connection mainly for his legal jobs and video conferencing with his children living abroad. According to him legal profession is the only means of his livelihood. He was regularly paying telephone bills issued by the opposite party.
From July 2014 his telephone was not working properly. Consequently he could not use his telephone and internet connection. According to him his telephone was not working from 11/7/14 to 22/7/14, 5/9/14 to 11/9/14 and 4/11/14 to 14/11/14. He made an application under RTI act on 17/11/2014 marked as ext.A1. Information supplied by the opposite party stating that his telephone was not working, marked as Ext.A2. Although complaints were registered with the opposite party they failed to address the complaint in time. Considerable delay was experienced in repairing the faults because of wilful negligence from the side of opposite party. Internet would be non functional while the telephone was not working. This had already affected his legal research and interaction with his children living abroad thereby causing great mental agony and hardships to him. On 17/11/2014, finally he sent a letter to BSNL to disconnect his telephone and internet connections, which were disconnected on 17/11/2014. Letter to BSNL to disconnect his telephone and internet was marked as Ext.A3. The opposite party was issuing the complainant bills including for the period during which his internet and telephone were not working. In July 2014 his telephone was not working for 11 days but he was charged Rs.759/- by way of telephone bill, in September 2014 his telephone was not working for 6 days but he had to pay Rs.758/- towards telephone bill. In November 2014 his telephone was working only for 3 days but Rs.657/- was charged from him for telephone charges which included bill for 13 days after 17/11/2014, after disconnecting his telephone. His telephone bills were marked as Ext.A4 and A5. Further a telephone bill for the period from 1/12/2014 to 31/12/2014 for Rs.11.69/- was issued to the complainant by the opposite party marked as Ext.A6. According to the complainant there arose, wilful negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. The opposite party did not provide the complainant any deduction for rent for periods for which the telephone and internet were not working. On 20/12/2014 the complainant sent a registered letter to opposite party stating that he was not liable to pay the bill amount. Postal receipts for sending the registered letter and acknowledgement were marked as Ext.A7. The complainant also sent a letter on 29/5/2015 to opposite party under the RTI act for getting information from the opposite party to which the opposite party sent a reply which mentioned the dates on which the telephone and internet of the complainant were not working and the date on which they were repaired vide Ext.A8 and A9. According to the complainant the telephone and / or the internet were not working even after they were claimed to be repaired. Only by taking much follow up action with the opposite party they were repaired. Hence the opposite party’s act in this connection amounted to deficiency of service which caused the complainant great hardship, mental agony and loss. During periods when telephone and / or internet were not working the complainant had to make international calls to talk to his children staying abroad and also spend much time in internet cafe for legal research. The complainant claims to have spent Rs.3,000/- for making international calls and using internet in net cafe. The opposite party should compensate for this loss caused to him.
Hence the complainant prays to this Forum to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay him Rs.3,000/- for expenses incurred by him due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party, to pay him Rs.20,000/- by way of damages for mental agony and hardships caused to him because of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party and for excess telephone charges collected from him and to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost of the legal proceedings.
The complainant was admitted and notice was issued to both parties.
In their version the opposite party disputed all the averments in Para 1 of the complaint except that the complainant was a BSNL subscriber with telephone bearing No.0491-2552858 and customer ID 4013687007. This telephone was provided with broadband internet facility and the billing package was BB Home Combo UL 675 plan where no telephone rent is charged and 100 BSNL call units are free. The opposite party dispute the content of the Para 2 of the complaint. It is untrue that the telephone was not working from July 2014 and due to the wilful negligence of the opposite party much delay was caused to rectify the fault which deprived the complainant of the facility of telephone and internet. The complaint was booked on 5/9/2014 and the nature of fault registered was ADSL modem link failure. On verification it was found to be cable fault which was rectified on 11/9/2014. The last complaint was on 4/11/2014 and the same was ADSL modem link failure. Telephone line was dead due to cable fault on 14/11/2014. Cable fault was rectified and tested from exchange as OK. Since the complainant’s home was found locked at this time, the fault rectification was intimated to the mobile phone of the complainant and simultaneously SMS was sent to the complainant’s mobile phone regarding the closure of the complainant’s docket and to contact the office for further assistance, if necessary. But no information was received from the complainant but his request for closure on 17/11/2014. The opposite party’s offer to attend to the complaint was rejected by the complainant.
According to opposite party the complainant was their subscriber for 3 years. No other complaint was registered by the complainant since 2012. Only for 27 days the telephone was faulty. The opposite party disputes all the averments of the complainant in paras 3,4 & 5 of the complaint. The opposite party admitted that as per the request of the complainant his telephone connection was disconnected. Although subscribers are eligible for rent rebate for the telephone faulty period, the rebate is given only on request for rebate by the subscriber. Since the telephone bill is automatically generated by the billing system the faulty periods are not considered, unless request for rent rebate for telephone faulty period is given by the telephone subscriber. Hence rent rebate was not allowed. Rent rebates are given by the accounts wing by manual billing adjustments. Rectifying underground cable is a very tiresome process and time consuming work and according to opposite party there is no wilful negligence and deficiency of service on the part of BSNL staff. The opposite party disputes the argument of the complainant that he has incurred Rs.3000/- for interacting with his children abroad and for legal research because of availability of many social networks which provide free communication. No mental agony or hardship was caused to the complainant by opposite party. Hence, Opposite party’s prayer to the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
From the side of the complainant proof affidavit and notes of argument were filed and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. From the side of opposite party, opposite party was cross examined as DW1, opposite party filed chief affidavit and fresh affidavit. Matter was also referred to lok Adalath on 12/2/2015.
The following issues arise in this case
1.whether there is negligence and / or deficiency of service on the
part of opposite party
2.If so, what are the remedies ?
Issues 1 & 2
In this case the complainant had a bitter experience regarding BSNL telephone and internet connection because his telephone was not working during three different spells namely from 11/7/2014 to 22/7/14, 5/9/14 to 11/9/14 and from 4/11/14 to 14/11/14 and the complaints were not rectified on time. This laxity on the part of BSNL authorities amounts to deficiency of service as a result of which the complainant suffered a lot monetarily and mentally because
- His two children are living abroad
- He practices legal profession
Hence he needs telephone and internet services which were deprived to him for a period of about a month which caused him financial loss and mental agony for which he should be adequately compensated. Since he is a lawyer by profession, for pursuing his profession successfully, efficiently and effectively so many references using internet are necessary to him in this competitive world. Further the mental agony he would have suffered because of non working of telephone and consequent difficulty in interacting with his children who are living abroad cannot be exactly monetarily measured for which also he should be sufficiently compensated. He also spent a lot in connection with legal proceedings with BSNL.
Above all for the delay in clearing telephone fault no rental subsidy was given to him by BSNL.
Thus we observe that there is grave deficiency of service on the part of BSNL authorities.
Hence we allow the complaint and order BSNL authorities to pay the complainant Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only) for deficiency of service, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) compensation for mental agony. In addition, Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) should be paid to him for litigation expenses.
Order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of June 2016.
Sd/-
Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Suma.K.P.
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Copy of request letter sent by the complainant to opposite party dated
17/11/2014 under RTI
Ext.A2 - Reply to RTI letter by the opposite party dated 5/12/2014
Ext. A3 - Copy of request letter sent by the complainant to opposite party dated
17/11/14 for disconnection of telephone
Ext.A4 – Telephone bill dated 6/10/14 for Rs.758.43 issued to the complainant by
opposite party
Ext.A5 – Telephone bill dated 6/12/14 for Rs.657.30 issued to the complainant by
opposite party
Ext.A6 – Telephone bill dtd.6/01/15 for Rs.11.69 issued to the complainant by
opposite party.
Ext.A7 – Postal acknowledgement card addressed to opposite party
Ext.A8 – Copy of letter sent by the complainant to opposite party
Ext.A9 – Letter dated 29/6/15 sent to the complainant by the opposite party
Ext.A10 – Copy of complaint letter dated 5/9/2014 sent by the complainant to
Asst.Engr. Telecom Dept.
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
PW1 – K.A.Stanley James
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
DW1 – B.Srinivasan
Cost
Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
