Date of Filling :19.05.2014
Date of Disposal:16.10.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.32/2014
Tuesday, the 16th day of October 2015
D.Nagarathinam
S/o Duraisamypillai
Kosavanplayam Village and post,
Thiruvallur Taluk and District, …Complainant
/Vs/
- The Divisional Engineer (Maintenance)
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Tiruvallur Town (Black to Head Post Office)
Thiruvallur Taluk and District.
- The Junior Engineer,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,
Customer service center,
Tiruvallur-602 201. …Opposite Parties
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 29.09.2015 in the Presence of Thiru.C.Elamaran, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Thiru.M.P.Mohandass, Advocate for the opposite parties and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party seeking direction to direct the opposite parties to restored the telephonic connection No.27664709 install the telephonic post before the complainant house, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency of service and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and anxiety caused by the opposite parties with cost.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant is hired landline connection from the 1st opposite party vide No.27664709, the customer ID.No.4018626280, the type pf customer is individual. The complainant regularly paying the bill amount to the 1st opposite party. The complainant had children they are studying in V.G.R. College and JAYA College, the complainant having business at Thiruvallur.
2. That on 10.03.2014 the said telephonic connection was out of order and
not functioning properly, the same was intimated to both the opposite parties orally, the said out of order was not restored, due to that, the complainant’s business was affected and education of children was also affected, further the communication between parents and children’s was affected. To that effect the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 04.04.2014 stating all the reasons. The said legal notice was served on 07.04.2014. The 1st opposite party forwarded the legal notice dated (04.04.2014) to 2nd opposite party on 07.04.2014 SDC/CSC/TVR/Gen1/20114-2015. At TVR. Though the opposite parties received the legal notice, till date they are not interested to install telephonic post and not restored the telephonic connection to the complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony. Hence this complaint.
The contention of the written version of the opposite parties has brief as follows:
3. The opposite parties denied all the allegations and averments
mentioned in the complaint except to the extent hereinafter admitted herein. That it is true that the Landline Telephone connection bearing in Land Line No:27664709 was provided to the complainant and telephone line is functioning at Pilliyar Koil Street, Kosavanpalayam Village, Tiruvallur. It is false and not true that the complainant’s telephone line was under faulty due to the removal of telephone post in front of the complainant’s house and the telephone wire was parallel to TNEB.
4. That the complainant has lodged oral complaint on 10.03.2014 stating that his telephone line was out of order and a telephone post standing in front of the complainant’s house has been removed by the area line staff without his notice. On receiving the complaint from the complainant, the Sub Divisional Engineer, Tiruvallur along with Junior Telecom officer have visited the site and found light noise due to cable low insulation fault and immediately the line was set right by changing the cable pair. It is further submitted that due to some technical fault of the telephone post, the areas line man has informed to one of the family members of the complainant about the reason for removing the telephone post. But the complainant was not convinced and the threatened the area line man for the removal of telephone post. The Department is the competent authority to decide whether the telephone post is in order or it should be removed and not by the complainant.
5. After receipt of the lawyer notice on 07.04.2014, the opposite parties sent their technical staff to verify the complainant’s telephone line condition which was once again checked and found no fault. Since then no complaint was booked by the complainant for his telephone line either orally or written complaints.
6. The area line staff has done his duty only even though it is not bounden duty to inform the complainant about removal of the telephone post. But the line staff has even informed to one of the family members of the complainant before removing the telephone post. It is the duty of the department to remove the telephone post if it is not necessary or any damage to the public in future. The telephone line was thoroughly checked up by changing the cable pair and erected new telephone post to satisfy the complainant even though there was no fault due to telephone post. Hence, it is not true that his telephone has become faulty due to the removal of telephone post only as alleged by the complainant. The Divisional Engineer, Tiruvallur, the first opposite party has visited the complainant’s premises on 10.06.2014 at 14-00Hrs to convince the complainant on a goodwill gesture. The complainant also satisfied the service rendered by the opposite parties. Even then with ulterior motive this complaint filed without clean hands. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
8. Point 1: According to this case of the complainant is that the opposite
parties had removed the telephone post and due to that the complainant’s connection was out of order on 10.03.2014 itself. After due complaint, the telephone was not restored and also sprite of legal notice issued to the opposite party to restore the connection but not done in time and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On the other hand, it is contended by the opposite party that the allegation made by the complainant is denied and in fact that on complaint, immediately the Sub Divisional Engineer, Tiruvallur along with Junior Telecom officer have visited the site and found light noise that the cable low insulation fault and same was immediately set right by changing the cable pair. Further it is stated that it is duty of the department to remove the telephone post if does not necessary are any damaged the public in future and so that the telephone post remove by the land line man with appropriate instruction and the complainant is no way affected on the removal of the telephone post.
9. At this juncture, it goes without saying that the complainant is having bounden duty to prove this case by means of proper and relevant evidence. First of all on careful perusal of the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is stated that on 10.03.2014, the said telephone connection was out of order and the same was intimated to the opposite parties on that day itself. But, it was not restored and due to that his business was affected and also the childrens education as well as the communication between him and children’s. Therefore the complainant issued the legal notice exhibit A2 to the opposite parties and the same was acknowledged by the opposite parties which is marked as Exhibit A5 and A6 respectively, letter from Sub Divisional Engineer, Tiruvallur towards SDE, Tiruvallur(Urban) it is marked as Exhibit A3, consumer bill and the payment receipts are marked as Exhibit A1 and A4 respectively.
10. While so, it is learnt from the proof affidavit of the opposite parties that subsequent alleged fault period, the opposite party immediate rectifying the restored the connection and in continuation the said connection has became functioning and to that effect Exhibit B1 and B2 bills were delivered to the complainant, which reveals clearly that is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Further it is narrated by the opposite party as per section 7B Indian Telephone Act 1885, the consumer Forum is not empowered to deal with dispute arising out of Telegraph line installation and maintenance as there is already a provision under section 7B of Indian Telegraph Act 1885 by which such disputes shall be restored through Arbitration as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore this complaint is not maintainable.
11. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the above facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that the removal of telephone post is only on the duty of the department, if it is not necessary or any damage to the public in future and also the said telephone line was thoroughly checked by changing the cable pair and erected new telephone post to satisfy the complainant even though there is no fault due to telephone post and the same was duly informed to the complainant even though it is not a bounden duty. Further, from the Exhibit B1 and B2, it is learnt that the telephone connection was restored immediately on the complaint preferred by the complainant.
12. In light of the above facts and circumstances, this Forum has no hesitation to decide that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
13. Point 2: In view of the conclusion arrived in the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Thus the point no.2 is answered accordingly.
In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 16th October 2015.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt.06.03.2014: Copy of the consumer bill of the complainant.
Ex.A2/Dt.04.04.2014: Office copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant’s
Advocate to the opposite parties.
Ex.A3/Dt.07.04.2014: Copy of the letter sent by the 1st opposite party to the SDE,
Tiruvallur, (Urban), Tiruvallur.
Ex.A4/Dt.06.04.2014: Payment receipt of the complainant.
Ex.A5/Dt. : Postal acknowledgment card of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A6/Dt. : Postal acknowledgment card of the 2nd opposite party.
List of Documents filed by the Opposite Party
Ex.B1/Dt.06.06.2014: Xerox copy of the telephone bill of the complainant given by the
opposite party.
Ex.B2/Dt.06.07.2014: Xerox copy of the telephone bill of the complainant given by the
opposite party.
Ex.B3/Dt. : Xerox copy of the under section 7B if the Indian Telegraph Act,
1985.
Sd/-*** Sd/-***
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
