DR. S. M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER      

1.       This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 11.7.2016 passed in Appeal No. 811 of 2014 by Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission whereby the appeal of the OP was dismissed.

2.       The complainant, Kailash Chand Meena, was availing telephone services i.e. telephone connection, from Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and was regularly paying the bills.  The service line of the said telephone was disconnected on 5.5.2011 due to damage to cable line during the PWD work near village Rahadiya.  The complainant registered the complaint before concerned BSNL office but the OP had neither repaired the line nor made the telephone operational.  In spite of disconnection, the OP was issuing bills to the complainant regularly.  Therefore, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum and prayed for making telephone connection operational and annulment of bills issued after 5.5.2011 alongwith proper compensation.

3.       The OP filed the reply and stated that the telephone was disconnected due to damage to the cable.  As per the departmental rules, it was not possible to lay underground cable for 5 kilometers, which will be financial burden on the department for laying cable for a single connection.  In lieu of that, the complainant was informed to avail WLL connection.  The OP sent two registered letters dated 27.8.2012 and 17.1.2013 in this regard, but the complainant had not replied.  The department was still ready to provide WLL services if the complainant agrees for the WLL connection.

4.       The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to reconstruct the telephone line and start the connection again; also directed not to raise bills from 11.5.2011 till the date of reconstruction and cancel the bills issued thereon for the aforesaid period; also, awarded Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation costs and Rs. 2000/- towards mental agony.

5.       Being aggrieved, the OP filed first appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed; hence, BSNL/OP filed this instant revision petition. 

6.       We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.  Counsel for the petitioner/BSNL submitted that the laying of new cable for such a long distance for a single consumer will involve heavy financial burden.  It is not commercially and financially viable for the BSNL; therefore, the option was given to the complainant to avail the telephone services, having better quality and utility through WLL.  The counsel also submitted that in the revision petition No. 2708 of 2014-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Devi Sahay Sharma, this Commission allowed the petitioner therein to provide WLL connection, instead of landline connection.  It is also submitted that the extent of damage to the phone line was due to JCB machine which was used during PWD road work.  Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that there was no harm to do the cable repair work.  There was no need to replace entire telephone line or the cable.  The OP failed to reconstruct the telephone cable but OP is sending the bills regularly.  Hence, it is a deficiency in service.

7.       We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the parties.  It is an admitted fact that there was damage to the telephone line due to digging on the road and as per the submission of OP, it has to replace the entire cable of more than 5 kms.; only repair will not be permanent solution.  In our view, to lay down telephone cable for a single customer, will be certainly a burden on the government exchequer.  There are other better alternatives available for the complainant to opt for WLL or mobile services.  It was the duty of patient/consumer to accept better services than the landline.  There are more chances of repeated damage and disconnection by frequent excavation work or breaking of the underground cable for different reasons.

8.       Therefore, considering the circumstances of this case, we do not find any need for re-connection in the instant case to burden the government exchequer.  If the complainant is so aggrieved, the OP shall refund the amount deposited against the said telephone connection, without any demand for bill from 11.5.2011 onwards.  We do not think that the complainant deserves any compensation, because it was neither deficiency nor unfair trade practice on behalf of the OP.  We further suggest the complainant to avail WLL or the advanced services presently available.  If the complainant desire for WLL service then the OP shall provide new WLL connection in lieu of old connection without charging any extra cost.

9.         With these terms, the revision petition is disposed of.