order dated 31/10/2008<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT. <br /> <br /> Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complainant is a customer of BSNL for the past four years by obtaining telephone No.244821 on payment of Rs.3,000/- initial deposit and he has been regularly paying the telephone bill without any delay. <br /> <br /> 2. That the learned authority of BSNL has failed to give proper service and he is not getting uninterrupted service and when ever he used to talk in the telephone he used to hear the voice from other persons which means there used to be cross talk and in this regard he has given a complaint to the concerned JOT and SDOT on several times due to the defect and deficiency of telephone, but he did not receive any proper response from the concerned officers. <br /> <br /> 3. That he has paid Rs.256/-for the period commencing from 1st August 2008 to 30th September 2008. <br /> <br /> 4. That he has produced the bill for the period commencing from 1st June 2008 to 31st July 2008 and the copy of the complaint written to Kutta Exchange and also the receipt for having deposited Rs.3,000/- with the opposite party and other telephone bills to demonstrate that he has been regularly paying the telephone bills and at no point of time he was due. <br /> <br /> 5. That the complainant has prayed for following relief;<br /> <br /> a) call for the enquiry<br /> b) To direct the opposite party to render proper service.<br /> c) And for damages and other cost as deem fit.<br /> <br /> 6. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to be sent to the opposite party and the JTO appeared through their counsel and filed his version and also the affidavit and produced the TGP billing records pertaining to the complainant’s telephone and has taken following contentions;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complaint is not maintainable in law nor in facts and circumstances of the case and the relief claimed does not fall under the purview of consumer dispute.<br /> <br /> 2. That the allegation made by the complainant that his telephone was not working properly, he gave three complaints and O.P did not set-right his telephone and did not give proper service are denied as false.<br /> <br /> 3. That the telephone of the complainant has been working properly and the TGP billing record enclosed is self explanatory regarding proper working of the complainant’s telephone and that the complainant has filed a false case to make an illegal gain. <br /> <br /> 4. That the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and there is no cause of action.<br /> <br /> 5. For the foregoing reasons the opposite party pray for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. Both the complainant and the opposite party have filed their affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. <br /> <br /> 8. Having regard to the averments in the complaint and the defence taken by the opposite party following issues arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. The main grievance of the complainant is well explained in his complaint to Kutta Exchange relevant sentence is reproduced. <br /> <br /> “ “K0u®± HŠ®l®± î®Ç®Á K¡µë‡®± ‹°r î®ã¯Š® w®lµ‰±q®± Aªå0u® K0u®± w¯©±Ê î®Ç®Áv0u® w¯w®± gµªyµ½°w®± ¯l®±î¯S® Cq®Š® N®ŠµS®¡®± …Š®qµ²l®Tu®î®¼ (N¯äš g¯N). Cu®w®±Ý Hš.i.m.C.i ‡®±î®‹Sµ î®±w®u®h±Ô ¯mNµ²g¯ÔS®©± D y®‹›Úr‡®±w®±Ý š®‹y®m›©å. N®±hÔ HNéXµ0bSµ œµ²°T xŠ®0q®Š® y®¼N¯Š®± x°muµÛ°wµ. Bu®Š®² ‡®¾¯Š®± D …SµÌ q®ŒµNµm›Nµ²0m©å. w¯©±Ê î®Ç®Áv0u® xŠ®0q®Š®î¯T K0u®± r0S®¢Sµ²îµ±â yµ½°w u®±Š®›Ú‡®¾¯S®±q®Ù Cu®±î®ŠµSµ …0vuµ. DS®©² N®²l® w®w®Ý yµ½°w š®‹‡®¾¯T X®Œ¯î®nµ‡®±ªå C©å. D y®‹›Úr Kl®wµ š®‹î®¾¯m Nµ²l®„µ°N¯T ïw®0r”.<br /> <br /> 10. As against the above, the opposite party has stated that they have been providing proper service to the complainant and TGP billing records disclose the same. We have perused the TGP bills produced by the opposite party. No doubt bills demonstrate that many calls have been made by the complainant during the relevant period, but the opposite party has not stated anything about the cross talk and cross call. They have not whispered anything about the same neither in the version nor in the affidavit. Therefore, it can be said that the opposite party has failed to provide uninterrupted service without any problem which amounts to deficiency in service. Therefore, point no.1 is answered affirmatively and proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed and the opposite party is hereby directed to provide uninterrupted service without there being cross talk and cross calls and OP is further directed to compensate the complainant for he being put to mental agony and hardship and as such OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.500/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant which we feel that it would meet the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> The above order shall be complied by the opposite parties within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order.<br /> <br /> <br /> Communicate the order to the parties. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA),<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />