BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 26th day of July 2018
Filed on : 22/01/2016
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No.42/2016
Between
Thankachan K.P., : Complainant
S/o. Paily, Kunnummel house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court road,
MannathoorP.O., Muvattupupzha)
Muvattupuzha-686 667.
And
1. M/s. BSNL : Opposite parties
Rep. by its Principal General (party-in-person)
Manager, BSNL Bhavan,
Kalalthaiparambil road,
Ernakulam, Kochi-16.
2. Junior Telecom Officer,
BSNL, Telephone Exchange,
Mannathoor P.O.,
Muvattupuzha-686 667.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Complainant's case
The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party M/s. BSNL under the telephone exchange, Muvattupuzha having telephone No. 04852875741 connected in his house. He was also provided with Broad Band facility under 650 plan. The complainant was facing recurrent call failures and data failures for a continuous period of one year. Thereafter, the phone has become practically dead during December 2015. The matter was brought to the attention of the Junior Telecom Officer/the 2nd opposite party in this case by a written complaint dated 12-01-2016. The Telephone Regulatory Authority of India had prescribed the other regulation making it mandatory for the opposite parties were duty bound to clear the fault within two days on receipt of a complaint. However, giving scant regards to the Regulations prescribed by the TRAI, the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by not repairing the phone within the prescribed period or even within a reasonable period. The complainant is entitled for restoration of the telephone facility . The complainant was also demanded the rent for the period when the phone was dead. Therefore, he is also entitled for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony, hardships and inconvenience caused by the deficient service of the opposite parties.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared and filed their version contending inter-alia that the fault in respect of the telephone number was booked through the fault booking on 01-12-2015 and that the fault was rectified on the next date itself. Again on 15-12-2015 another fault booking was done from the very same number. On further checking, it was observed that the phone was disconnected due to under ground cable fault. The cable became defective due to damage caused to the cable consequent to the road work undertaken by the complainant himself as a contractor during October - November 2014. Since the damaged cable is beneath the tarred/concreted portion of the road, the fault cannot be located. Underground cable had to be replaced at a length of 150 mtrs for clearing the cable fault completely in that area. Meanwhile, due to pipe line work in the same area of 20 pair underground Telecom cable also became faulty. The 10 pair cable through which the complainant's number working was diverted from this 620 pair cable. The complainant purchased 40 meters of cable and the fault was temporarily rectified on 01-02-2016. Since the damage happened beneath the road it took a little time to trace out the fault due to the road work and the pipe line work. In addition to the complainant's telephone another telephone was also became faulty due to the damage caused to the cable. The road works and pipe line works were carried out without prior intimation from the concerned authority. The permanent solution to avoid the repeated occurrences was to replace damaged cable for a length of 110 meters by drawing through the trench. Material cost including the cable and GI pipes would arrived Rs. 16,000/- and labour charge would be about 35,000/-. The Revenue loss to the BSNL is about 9,000/- coming to a total of Rs. 60,000/-. If the contractor, who is the complainant paying Rs. 60,000/- to BSNL, the fault in that area can be rectified permanently. BSNL is not liable to pay any compensation to the customer. BSNL has already granted rent rebate of Rs. 1,380/- for the non-working period from 12-10-2015 to 25-10-2015 and from 01-12-2015 to 07-02-2016 and the same was adjusted in the respective bills given to the complainant. Rent rebate for the period 01-02-2016 to 07-02-2016 will also be adjusted in the next bill to be generated on 06-03-2016. The complainant was a contractor of the road work has to be bear the entire amount of rectification which would come to Rs. 60,000/- including the cost of stores , labour charges and revenue loss sustained by BSNL. The complaint is therefore sought to be dismissed.
3. The evidence in this case consists of Exbt. A1 telephone bill on the side of the complainant. The opposite party did not adduce any evidence at all.
4. Heard both sides.
5. The following issues were settled for consideration
i. Whether the complainant had proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. Reliefs and costs.
6. Admittedly the complainant is a subscriber of Telephone No. 0485 2875741 under the opposite party service provider. The fact that, the telephone connection given to the complainant became faulty as alleged in the complaint has been practically admitted by the opposite party. As a gesture of admission of the fault in not providing proper service the opposite party had given a rebate to the complainant during the period 12-10-2015 to 25-10-2015 and from 01-12-2015 to 07-02-2016 and again from 01-02-2016 to 07-02-2017. Therefore no further evidence is required on the basis of the admission, that there was frequent call dropping and non providing of data to the complainant, despite the continuation of the subscription. In the version, the opposite party was attempting to justify their fault without expressing any remorse for the intermittent service deficiency provided to the complainant repeatedly during short frequency. The tenor of the version reflects only a recalcitrant attitude on the part of the opposite party without even expressing any sympathy to a consumer who had suffered at the hands of the opposite party. On the face of the records it is very clear that the opposite party was not only providing deficient in service to the complainant but also accusing the complainant for the inefficiency of the staff working under the opposite party who were duty bound to see that the road works and pipe line works were to be checked and controlled under their supervision. The complainant cannot be find fault for the inefficient admission of the opposite party and that must call for exemplary compensation.
7. It is true that the complainant did not come forward to adduce any oral evidence. However, the admitted records would given sufficient light and indication to the lethargic, and indifferent and unmindful attitude against their consumer. We are able to conceive the feelings of an unfortunate customer under the opposite party, who suffered his right after having subscribed to the telephone connection from the opposite party anticipating that the opposite party under the control of the Government India could be an example for another service providers and same fraternity.
8. We find merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant consumer had suffered inconvenience and mental agony due to the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party against the complainant. The issue is therefore found in favour of the complainant and we are eminently satisfied that the complainant's case has been proved.
9. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i in favour of the complainant and considering the facts and circumstance wherein the opposite party was not even prepared to express their remorse by providing their apology to the complainant, we find that the opposite party is liable to be burdent with payment of exemplary compensation. The version of the opposite party would go to show that the opposite party had suffered Rs. 60,000/- as revenue loss, due to to the alleged omission on the part of the complainant who allegedly happened to be a contractor of the road works. Though, such a contention was taken in the version the opposite party did no even care to adduce any evidence to substantiate such a cantankerous contention against the same consumer.
10. In the facts and circumstance of the case, we are of the unanimous opinion that at least minimum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- has to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant, considering the deficient service , Unfair Trade Practice and to crown all the cantankerous contentions taken by the opposite parties in their version.
11 In the result, we direct the 1st opposite party
i. to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for the deficient service and commission of Unfair Trade Practice and the inconvenience caused to the complainant, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order which is to reckoned as the 3rd day from the date of despatch from the Registry of the Forum considering the deficient service, Unfair Trade Practice and to crown all the cantankerous contention taken by the opposite parties in their version.
ii. Considering the fact that the telephone connection has been restored after the filing this case, we find that no separate order is necessary by directing the opposite party to restore the telephone connection.
iii. The complainant is entitled to the cost of this litigation, we estimate at Rs. 5,000/-. The opposite party is directed to pay the same within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 26th day of July 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits..
Exbt. A1 : Copy of bill dt. 06-01-2016
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
