KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.75/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED : 10.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.368/2015 on the file of DCDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Advs. Sony A. and Adv. B.A. Krishnakumar)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the 3^rd opposite party and the 1^st respondent is the complainant in C.C.No.368/2015 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties having a landline telephone No.04936 274649.  During the month of March 2014, the said telephone connection was disrupted due to the damage of the cable.  The matter was reported to the opposite parties and a complaint was also submitted.  Thereafter, the said defects were rectified and the connection was restored in August 2014.  However, within one week of the restoration of the connection, the same problem recurred.  Even though the matter was reported to the opposite parties, they did not incline to rectify the defects.  Therefore, on 24.07.2015, the complainant caused to issue legal notice to the opposite party, for which they sent a reply stating that the telephone connection of the complainant was closed on 20.01.2015.  The complainant had paid all the bills regularly and no amount was due from the complainant.  Since the opposite parties were not prepared to restore the telephone connection, the complainant filed the above complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.       The opposite parties filed version admitting the disruption of the telephone connection and the consequent closing of the connection on 20.01.2015.  However, the opposite parties contended that since the road was excavated for the purpose of expansion of the road, the underground cables got ruptured.  It was further stated that the complainant’s place is an interior area which is about 8.5 kms away from the prime cable.  Since no public conveyance was available to go to the place of the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party had to send the staff in the jeep to attend the fault.  The service was being maintained by the BSNL without any complaint.  However, during the process of excavation for the purpose of expansion of the road, the cables got damaged.  The opposite parties offered a WLL connection to the complainant.  However, the complainant has not so far accepted the same.  The opposite parties would contend that it was very difficult to restore the connection to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          4.       Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 series to A4 were marked for the complainant.  OPW1 was examined and Exhibit B1 was marked for the opposite parties.

          5.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite parties to restore the telephone connection to the premises of the complainant.  The District Commission further directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) as costs.  Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed.

          6.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

          7.       The complainant had a telephone connection provided by the opposite parties.  The said telephone connection was disrupted during the month of March 2014.  The problem was rectified in August 2014.  However, the telephone connection was again disrupted within one week.  The opposite parties were not prepared to restore the telephone connection.

          8.       The sole contention of the opposite parties is that, since the premises of the complainant is at a remote place, it is not possible to provide underground cable connection to the residence of the complainant.  It is further contended that a WLL telephone connection was offered by the opposite parties, which was not accepted by the complainant. 

          9.       OPW1 was examined for the opposite parties.  OPW1 has categorically stated that there are two connections near to the premises of the complainant.  It is evident from the evidence of OPW1 that the said connections are nearly 300 metres away from the premises of the complainant.  The evidence of OPW1 itself would make it clear that the contention of the opposite parties, that the complainant’s premises is situated in a remote area and hence, giving cable connection to the complainant’s premises is not possible,  cannot be accepted. 

          10.     It is not disputed that the complainant had a telephone connection.  It is also not disputed that the complainant was making payment of the bills regularly.  It is in the evidence of OPW1that there are two underground cable connections near to the premises of the complainant.  In the said circumstances, the opposite parties ought to have restored the existing telephone connection to the complainant.  Since that was not done, there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the finding of the District Commission that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not warrant any interference by this Commission. The District Commission only directed the opposite parties to restore the connection and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only), which cannot be said to be disproportionate or harsh, calling for interference by this Commission.

          In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.  In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.

The statutory deposit made by the appellant shall be given to the 1^st respondent, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered by the District Commission, on proper acknowledgement. 

SL