Kerala

StateCommission

A/16/535

THE GENERAL MANAGER BSNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

K P THOMAS - Opp.Party(s)

MAYA R MANI

05 Dec 2019

ORDER

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO. 535/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 05.12.2019

PRESENT : 

SHRI. T.S.P MOOSATH                                             : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI.RANJIT .R                                                          : MEMBER

1. The General Manager,

BSNL Office, Kottayam,

Kerala.

 

2. The Deputy General Manager,

BSNL Office, Kottayam,

Kerala.

 

3. Divisional Engineer,

BSNL Office, Karukachal.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

4. Sub Divisional Engineer,

BSNL Office, Vakathanam.

 

5. Junior Engineer,

BSNL Office, Vakathanam.

(R/by Assistant General Manager,

BSNL Kottayam, Moly Dominic.)

 

(By Adv: Smt. Maya R. Mani)

 

            Vs.

 

K.P. Thomas,

Karuchira, Vakathanam, Kottayam-686 538.               : RESPONDENT

 

(By Adv: Sri. Varkala. B.Ravikumar)

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI. RANJIT. R : MEMBER

Opposite parties has filed the appeal against the order in CC.312/14 dated,30.06.2016 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (for short the District Forum).  The District Forum by its order directed the appellants to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as litigation costs.

The case of the complainant is that:-  He was having Land phone connection No.2462458 of Vakathanam Exchange.  According to the complainant on 10.6.2014 he had intimated the fault of his land phone connection with the opposite party.  They informed that wire, telephone and splitter for modem connection are to be replaced.  Accordingly the complainant replaced the same and they prove connection.  Again on 30.6.2014 the phone become faulty and 1^st opposite party informed that the cable is defective.  Then on 17.7.2014 the complainant made a complaint with the 5^th opposite party.  And on 1.8.2014, 5^th opposite party inspected and informed that cable joint defect at Bank junction.  But opposite party did not care to rectify the said defects and instead issued regular bills.  The act of opposite party in not rectifying the defect of his land phone, amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence he filed the complaint for getting compensation and costs.

Opposite parties filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable.  No complaint will lie against BSNL before the Fora, as per section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act.  According to the opposite party the complainant booked a complaint on 1.6.2014 and it was rectified on 11.6.2014.  Next complaint regarding his broadband connection was received on 17.6.2014.  On inspection it was found that the modem point was burnt due to the striking of lightening.  Complainant was directed to replace the modem, wiring etc. inside the house.  On changing the same the connection was rectified on 19.6.2014.  The complainant again complained about the fault of the land line on 29.6.2014 and on testing it was found that the connection was completely dead.  On inspection it was found that the fault was under the tarred portion of the road.  On further inspection it was found that the cable was damaged at different points.  Locating the multiple faults occurred in the above was difficult and time consuming and it is not possible for repairing/replacing the entire cable pair to the connection.  The entire cable alignment to the route was rearranged at many points to bypass the faulty portions and the connection was repaired on 23.9.2014.  The delay was occurred due to unavoidable circumstances and it was beyond the control of the opposite party.  So they gave rent rebate for the non working period of the telephone.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of their part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

Evidence consists of proof affidavit filed in lieu of chief filed by the complainant. His documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A3.  Authorised representative of the opposite parties filed affidavit in lieu of chief and document produced on their side were marked as Ext.B1.

The District Forum on the basis of the materials produced and considering the rival contentions found that there was inordinate delay in repairing the land line of the complainant by the opposite party, which amounts to deficiency of service.  The District Forum, on that finding passed the impugned order.  Aggrieved by this said order this appeal is filed by the opposite parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the fault of the land line reported by the complainant on 1.6.2014 and 17.6.2014 were rectified by them on 11.6.2014 and 19.6.2014 respectively.  The complainant again complained about the defects of the land line on 29.6.2014 and on testing it was found that the connection was completely dead.  On inspection it is found that the fault was under the tarred portion of the roads.  Locating the multiple fault which was occurred in the cable was a difficult  process and time consuming.  The entire cable alignment was rearranged at many points to rectify the faulty portions and the connection was thus repaired on 23.7.2014.  The delay occurred because of the aforementioned reasons and it was beyond the control of the opposite parties.  More over they have given rent rebate to the complainant and hence fixing compensation at Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- is not fair especially when there was no deficiency of service on their part. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that there was inordinate delay in rectifying the defects by the opposite party and the fault was repaired only after complaint was filed before the Forum.  Due to the delay the complainants have sustained much mental agony and loss and hence the order of the Forum awarding compensation of Rs.3000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- is only just and reasonable.

We have considered the arguments put forward by both the counsels and perused the records.  There is no dispute as to the fact that the land line of the complainant became faulty and that there was delay in repairing the same by the appellants/BSNL.  The reason for the delay as stated by the appellants in version is that, the fault was under the tarred portion of the road and it was found that cable was damaged at different points.  The entire cable alignment was rearranged at many points to correct the faulty portion of the cable wire, the whole process was very difficult one and time consuming.  Even though the appellants have stated the above reason in their version and their affidavit, they could not substantiate the cause of the inordinate delay of three months to correct the same by adducing documentary evidence.  It was up to the BSNL Department/appellants to keep the circuit free from interruptions.  Even according to their version, as per the Indian Telegraph Act, there is specific direction in the Act that the BSNL Department has to make all endeavor to keep the circuit free from interruptions.  Here admittedly three complaints occurred within a short span of one month with the land line of the complainant as well as broad band connection of the complainant.  No satisfactory explanation was bought out by the appellants, to substantiate the delay in correcting the 3^rd complaint.

The above acts and omissions on the part of the opposite party is clear case of deficiency of service for which the complainant is to be adequately compensated.  The District Forum in the above circumstances has ordered compensation of Rs.3000/- and also ordered Rs.2000/- as costs.  We however notice that the opposite parties have given rent rebate

 

in the telephone bill of the complainant and hence we are of the opinion that the compensation ordered by the Forum is to be reduced.  We feel an amount of Rs.1500/- will be a just and proper compensation in the above circumstances.  The Forum awarded Rs.2000/- as costs of the proceedings.  The amount ordered is also high.  An amount of Rs.1000/- will be a just amount to be awarded as costs instead of Rs.2000/-.  Hence the order of the District Forum is to be modified as stated above.

In the result appeal is partly allowed, the order of the District Forum is modified as follows:-

1. The opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1500/- as compensation to the complainant as against Rs.3000/- ordered by the District Forum.
2. Opposite parties/appellants are directed to pay Rs.1000/- as costs instead of Rs.2000/- ordered by the District Forum.

 

 

 Release the amount of Rs.2500/- to the complainant ordered as compensation and costs from the statutory amount deposited by the appellants, on filing proper application.

 

T.S.P MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

RANJIT .R : MEMBER

 

VL.