BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 23rd February 2017
PRESENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
C.C.No.33/2015
(Admitted on 17.01.2015)
Manjunatha Acharya,
S/o. Shankara Acharya,
Aged about 63 years,
R/at Door No.2.29,
Ajjinadka House,
Neerkaje Puncha Post,
Bantwal Tq,D.K.
……… Complainant
(Advocate for Complainant by Sri. SD)
VERSUS
General Manager,
B.S.N.L, Old Kent Road,
Mangalore 1.
…. Opposite Party
(Advocate for Opposite Party by Sri: BNK)
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI VISHWESHWARA BHAT D
- 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 claims Opposite Party had provided land line telephone service as per No. 268663 to complainant in the year 2000 from Vittla Exchange since about 2 years on every 15 days there is fault in the line not attended inspite of complaint made to the concerned by complainant. However Opposite Party has not bothered to set right the telephone line connection to complainant including of registered notice dated 12.9.2014 to Opposite Party. Contending there is deficiency in service by Opposite Party complainant seeks to reliefs mentioned in the complaint.
II. Opposite parties on entering appearance claim the underground BSNL cable system is damaged heavily under Punacha Exchange Area due to road widening work by PWD authorities. However the line alignment up to complainants house was fully restored and he was requested to get telephone reconnected by clearing the pending bills which he refused. Hence this disconnection is for non-payment. However due to his request to the forum on 27.02.2015 telephone line was restored to complainants. BSNL in nowhere responsible for interruption of complainant’s telephone service as it was caused to reasons beyond this control. There is no lapse of deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.
2. In support of the above complaint the complainant Mr. Manjunatha Acharya filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex.C1 to C9 as detailed in the annexure here below. On behalf of the opposite party Narayana Naik A. (RW1) of opposite party also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on him.
III. In view of the above said facts, the points for consideration in the case are:
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
The learned counsels for both sides filed notes of arguments. We have considered entire case file on record including evidence tendered by the parties and notes of argument of the parties. Our findings on the points are as under are as follows:
Point No. (i) : Affirmative
Point No. (ii) : Affirmative
Point No. (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS
IV. POINTS No. (i): That land line telephone service provided to complainant by Opposite Parties was admitted by Opposite Parties in the written version. Hence the relationship as consumer and service provider and existence of dispute under section 2(e) of C P Act is established. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.
POINTS No.(ii): the claim of Opposite Parties is there was disruption in land line connection to complainant due to damages caused to under line cables at the time of road widening work carried out by PWD authorities. However if PWD authorities damaged the underground cables belonging to Opposite Parties the responsibilities to seek damages as otherwise from PWD authorities squarely lies with Opposite Parties only. For this Opposite Party cannot point out accusing finger to complainant.
As to the allegation of Opposite Parties of outstanding telephone bills due from complainant, Opposite Parties have not produced any documents to substantiate the claim. Ex.C7 the telephone bill issued to complainant shows it was for a period from 1.8.2014 to 30.9.2014 the bill shows the only previous balance as Rs.565.85 and the amount pay Rs. 566/ due amount showing no connection provided to complainant. Thus from the documents produced and evidence there is deficiency in service provided by Opposite Party to complainant is established. That even telephone line was not restored by Opposite Parties. Except the say of Opposite Parties witness there are no documents produced to show restoration of the telephone line to complainant’s residence. Hence we are the view that deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties to complainant in proved.
As to the claim of Opposite Party by referring to a reported of judgement of the Apex Court the same is not applicable to facts on hand as it was reported Under Section 7 (B) of Inidan Telegraph Act and Telephone Adalat. In the case on hand Opposite Parties are a public limited company and not an authority under the Telegraph Act. Apart from directing to Opposite Parties to restore land line connection shall be directed to pay compensation to complainant. Considering the case an amount of Rs.10,000/ as compensation and another Rs.3,000/- towards advocate fee would meet ends of justice. Hence we answer point no. 2 in the affirmative.
POINTS No. (iii): Wherefore the following order
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with cost.
- Opposite Parties are directed to repair and restored the land line telephone connection No.268663 to complaints residence within 3 months from the date of service of copy of this order.
- Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,000/ as compensation to complainant.
- Advocates fee fixed at Rs.3,000/.
4. If Opposite Parties fail to restore the telephone line within the specified time above they shall pay penalty Rs.100/- per day to complainant until restoration of the land line connection.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 directly dictated by President to computer system to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 23rd February 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
(LAVANYA M RAI) (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)
D.K. District Consumer Forum D.K. District Consumer Forum
Mangalore Mangalore
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 Mr. Manjunatha Acharya,
Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.C1: 05.10.2013: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C2: 05.12.2013: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C3: 05.02.2014: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C4: 05.04.2014: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C5: 05.06.2014: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C6: 05.08.2014: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C7: 05.10.2014: Original bills issued by the Opposite Party.
Ex.C8: 12.09.2014: O/c of the regd lawyers notice.
Ex.C9: 15.09.2014: Postal Acknowledgement.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1: Narayana Naik A.
Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Nil
Dated: 23.02.2017 PRESIDENT
