Karnataka

Dakshina Kannada

CC/33/2015

Manjunatha Acharya - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjay D.

23 Feb 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/33/2015
 
1. 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(s)
Versus
1. General Manager
B.S.N.L Old Kent Road Mangalore 1
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Lavanya . M. Rai MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sanjay D., Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 23 Feb 2017
Final Order / Judgement

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. 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:

  1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer and the dispute between the parties?
  2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed?
  3. 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.

  1. 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.
  2. Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.10,000/ as compensation to complainant.
  3. 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  

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Vishweshwara Bhat D]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Lavanya . M. Rai]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.