Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Sri Nirmalendu Halder, S/o.
Late Nirapada Halder of Village-Harakrishnapur, Tapra, P.O. – Yaarpur, P.S.- Usthi, Pin – 743 513 against Manabendra Naskar, S.D., B.S.N.L., Chief General Manager, BSNL, Divisional Engineer (CS II), BSNL, and Commercial Officer, Alipore, BSNL, with a prayer for directing the OPs to restore the telephone connection of the complainant, being Phone No:420 3764, to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as damaged for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damage for harassment.
OP is Manabendra Naskar. He is the S.D.E. of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). The address is Amtala Telephone Exchange, 24 Parganas (South).
OP No.2 is Chief General Manager, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones. The Address is Telephone Bhavan, Kolkata-700 001.
OP No.3 is Divisional Engineer (CS II) – BSNL, Calcutta Telephones. The address is Telephone Bhavan, Kolkata-700 001.
OP No.4 is Commercial Officer, Alipore, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones. The address is 598, D.H. Road, Calcutta – 700 034.
The complainant, by filing this case states that the complainant’s father was an employee of the Department of Telecom attached to Telecom Factory, Alipore holding the designation of Blacksmith.
The complainant’s mother was given the connection after the demise of complainant’s father. Such connection was given with some facility. The connection was given without any deposit. But the complainant was entitled to get 300 free calls. Accordingly, registration card was issued on 24.09.2001. The present complainant’s mother was extremely old, she was confined to home. The telephone went out of order; the bill was raised till complete disconnection of the telephone connection. Since Amphan, i.e. since May, 2020 the complainant’s phone was totally dead. Such situation has put the complainant in severe difficulty. The complainant was unable to contact her doctor and relatives. She is ignorant of using the mobile phone. The complainant made complaint through her son (the substituted complainant), but with no effect.
The OP has deliberately failed to restore the connection. The complainant cannot use the telephone since May, 2020. The complainant approached the Commission for adequate relief.
Hence, the complainant prays for directing the OPs to restore the telephone connection of the complainant bearing No:24203764, to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- as damage for deficiency in service, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damage for harassment and mental trauma.
The OPs in the written version state that the complaint is not at all maintainable either in law or in facts.
The instant complaint petition is barred by the Principal of Waiver, Estoppels, Acquiescence.
That the complaint is harassing, frivolous, speculative and redundant and is of no consequences. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The sole intention of the complainant is to harass the OP. The complainant is not at all a consumer. On payment of the amount of consideration the complainant is not hiring the service. Such service is rendered free of cost. Hence, it does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. There is no specific cause of action of the instant case. The complainant suppressed material facts. The OPs admitted that there was severe damage in the overhead cable connection. So the service was disrupted. It is not proved that the complainant is deficient in providing proper service to the complainant.
The allegations made by the complainant are strongly denied and disputed. The complainant got rent-free telephone with 150 fee calls every month. The concession facility is entitled to Parbati Halder who was the wife of Mr. Nirapada Halder, a Telecom-Employee.
Time was taken for reinstallation of equipments and to start smooth running of Telephone Service. There is no unfair Trade Practice adopted by the OP.
The OPs 1 & 2 pray for deletion of name of the OPs 1 & 2.
As the OPs are giving service, the complaint is in no way entitled to get compensation from the OP.
The OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.
In the written objection, filed by the OPs 1 & 2, they state that the complaint was filed with mala fide intention.
OPs 1 & 2 state that the complainant is not at all a consumer because the service was rendered free of charge. The complainant did not disclose the proper facts and circumstances of the instant case before the Ld. Commission.
The complainant did not come with clean hands. The complainant’s father Nirapada Halder was allotted the concessional Telephone Connection, without any security deposit and it was rent free along with 150 free calls per month. Smt. Parbati Halder enjoyed this facility till death. As per circular No.11/2007-PHA dated 26.07.2007, the spouse of Nirapada Halder was eligible to get this facility. But the present complainant, cannot get the facility which was provided to the retired employee of BSNL and his spouse.
The instant case was filed on 21.03.2022. The case was admitted on 28.03.2022. On 31.05.2022, the OPs 1, 2 and 3 are present by filing power. On 27.06,.2022, the OPs file W/V. On 11.078.2022, the complainant files evidence on affidavit. On 13.09.2022, the OPs file questionnaire. Copy served. On 03.11.2022, the complainant files reply. Copy served. On 21.12.2022, the complainant files evidence on affidavit. Copy served. On 17.02.2023 the deceased complainant’s son fiales a petition for substituting his name. On 29.03.2023, the deceased complainant’s son was substituted in place of the complainant, Mrs. Parbati Halder. On 30.05.2023, the complainant files questionnaire. Copy served. On 05.07.2023, the OPs filed reply. Copy served. On 11.08.2023, the OPs filed BNA. On 19.09.2023, the complainant filed BNA. OPs were absent. The argument of complainant was heard. Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points for consideration :-
- Is the complainant, a consumer?
- Are the OPs guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons :-
Point No.1:-
On perusal of papers and documents, it appears that the complainant (Mr. Nirmalendu Halder) is the son of the original complainant (Parbati Halder). After the demise of Parbati Halder, the complainant, Mr. Nirmalendu’s name was incorporated. The son of the complainant, Parbati Halder, Mrs. Parbati Halder used a telephone connection which was given by BSNL, because her husband was an employee of BNSL. The complainant used to get 150 free calls per month. It was a rent free telephone. The complainant had to pay the charge of calls exceeding 150 calls. Some money receipts are annexed to the complaint petition. It indicates that the telephone connection was totally free of cost. The complainant used to avail of service in liew of money. So the complainant is a consumer U/S 2(7) of C. P. Act, 2019.
Point No:2 :
Being an employee of the BSNL, the complainant used to get certain facilities, because she was the wife of a BSNL employee. But the complainant, Mrs. Halder and her son Mr. NIrmalendu Halder faced a lot of difficulties. But the phone became inoperative since the devastating storm Amphan i.e. from May, 2020. Since then the complainant was deprived of using the telephone. The complainant sent several requests to restore the telephone connection but no action has been taken by the BSNL. The complainant was not accustomed to use the mobile phone.
As a result, the complainant faced difficulty. The OPs are committed to render service to the customer of BSNL, being a service provider. It is due to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the OPs that they are reluctant to render service to the customers.
Hence, the 2nd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
Point No.3 :-
The complainant was harassed by the OPs for several time. Many a time the OPs were informed for restoration of the telephone line, but the OPs neglected to perform their duties. The complainant was deprived of getting the facilities since three years as the telephone line got out of order since May, 2020. Being a consumer, the complainant did not get proper service from the service provider. The service providers are too negligent to provide service. The complainant spent time in mental pain and agony. The complainant used to pay charges for calls exceeding the prescribed 150 calls. Being a spouse of the employee of BSNL, she is entitled to get service from BSNL, but the contrary happened. Hence the substituted complainant, i.e. the son of the earlier complainant is also entitled to get the facility of telephone connection subject to certain modifications. So it appears that the 3rd point is decided in favour of the complainant and against the OPs.
In the result, the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs jointly and / or severally with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand).
That the OPs are directed to restore the telephone connection to the complainant following present norms of the BSNL within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs jointly and / or severally directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service and negligence within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the OPs are jointly and / or severally directed to pay the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) within 30 days from the date of this order.
That the complainant is at liberty to put the orders into execution if the orders are not complied with within 30 days from the date of this order.
Let a copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.
That the final order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sangita Paul
Member
