BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                             BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 4^th DAY OF JULY, 2022

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.258/2021

PRESENT:

SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER

                    SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

S/o Late D.Victor,

Aged about 57 years,

R/at:No.13, 3^rd Floor,

Shivaji Road Cross,

Bengaluru-560051. ……COMPLAINANT

(Rep by Sri.K.G.Srinivasa Reddy, Adv)

V/s

M/s Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Represented by Sri.Vishwantha,

Aged about 55 years,

Junior Engineer,

Telephone House,

Rajbhavan Road,

Bengaluru-560001.                       …….      OPPOSITE PARTY

(Represented by Sri.Prakash Rao, K, Adv)

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

1. The complaint was filed by the complainant on 18.03.2021 U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.2,00,000/- for suffering mental agony and torture and further Rs.2,00,000/- for damages for computers, laptop, UPS, Modem, etc and also Rs.5,000/- of legal notice charges in total Rs.7,05,000/- together with interest at the rate of 21% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till realization and litigation cost and such other reliefs as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit to grant by considering the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under;

 In the Complaint, the counsel for complainant submits that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party and had taken both landline and broadband service under Rs.675/- plan to his mobile number 8022863877 in the year 2008 paid bills regularly.  Further he submits that the service was good and satisfactory till 2016 the complainant shifted from Tin factory to Shivajinagar.  After the shifting, the complainant continued the same connection and regularly paid the bills.  But the service of the opposite party was worst, not good, than the previous address of the complainant.  In the month of August 2020 both landline and broadband was not operating.  Hence, he gave complaint to the opposite party to rectify the defect in the cable.  But the opposite party not rectified the defect and never took any action for the complaint given by the complainant and again on 05.10.2021, the complainant gave complaint to the opposite party to rectify the defect.  Since from the month of January 2021 till today the complainant is not getting both landline and broadband connection.  Even though the complainant was not getting landline and broad band connection he was paying the bills regularly to the opposite party.  The complainant state that, even after payment the BSNL bills, the opposite party had not rectified defect.  The opposite party told the complainant that it was the mistake of the BBMP that the BBMP persons were digging the ground to make smart city and the cable has been cut-down by them and disconnected the BSNL wires.  Till today, the complainant is not getting BSNL connection and the opposite party has not provided proper service to the complainant.  The opposite party sending message to the complainant to his mobile to pay the arrears of phone bill.  The complaint is having BSNL connection both for his office purpose and house purpose.  Without the BSNL connection, the complainant cannot run his office.  All the systems such as laptops, computers, modem and UPS and all interconnected are in the single BSNL connection.  All the connection are interconnected in the BSNL landline. The complainant has gone loss to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. 

3. The complainant states that there is deficiency in the service.  The defect in BSNL connection has not been rectified by the opposite party till today.  In this regard the complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party through his advocate dt.18.02.2021.  The opposite party neither cured the defect in the BSNL landline nor gave service to the complainant.  Even the opposite party had not given reply for the legal notice sent by the complainant.  There is deficiency in the service given by the opposite party to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint.

4. The counsel for the opposite party had filed version and partly denied the allegations made by the complainant.  The counsel for opposite party submits that opposite party i.e., Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited under the Ministry of communication, Government of India enterprise and has been incorporate as Public Sector Corporation and named as above and is doing sovereign function to the public at large with the main object of providing telecommunication facility.  It is further submitted that the very claim against the opposite party is not maintainable either in law or on acts of the case and same is liable to be dismissed ab-initio.  The claim is speculative, bereft of merits, lacks bonafide and requires to be dismissed.  It is further contended that the telephone in question was shifted on 13.08.2016 with the notification No.22863877 and was working upto 08.03.2021 without any complaint, except only one complaint on July 15, 2019 and the same was cleared on 16.07.2019.  It shows BSNL had given sufficient service.  It is further submitted that during the period August 2020 and 05, October 2020 there was interruption in the service due to underground BSNL cable damage during smart city project work by BBMP in local area.  But whatever cable cuts/damages service was restored.  It is further contended that the complainant paid the bill amount of Rs.500/- on 23.12.2020 for the period from 01.10.2020 to 31.10.2021 and thereafter no payment was made. 

5.   It is further contended that during the non-service period the office of BSNL extended the rebate of Rs.418/- in October 2020 and Rs.418/- in November 2020 as bill for non-working period as per field unit.   It is further contended that telephone in question was disconnected on08.03.2021 for non-payment of dues, service was interrupted for no fault of BSNL.  The opposite party submits that the averments are hypothetically false and based on no documentary evidence.  Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.

6. The counsel for the complainant filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to EX.P26 documents.  The counsel for the opposite party also filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 to R8 documents.

7.   Heard the arguments.

8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in the service of the opposite parties ?

ii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

iii)  What order?

9.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

10. POINT NO.1:-  The counsel for the complainant contends that the complainant is the customer of opposite party using both landline and broadband to his mobile No.8022863877 under Rs.675/- plan since 2008.  The service of opposite party was good and satisfactory initially.  In the year 2016, the complainant shifted from Tin factory to Shivajinagar, Bengaluru.  After that the service of opposite party was not efficient and good.  The complainant made several complaint to the opposite party.  The opposite party submits in its version that the complainant made only one complaint to it on July 15^th, 2019 and the same was cleared on 16.07.2019 and further submits that during the period of August 2020 to 05.10.2020 there was interruption in the service due to smart city project work by BBMP in that local area and that time underground BSNL cable got damaged and the same service was restored and further submits that opposite party had extended the rebate during non-service period. 

11. There is no dispute with regard to the service connection.  According to RW1 services are disturbed.  Whenever there are public developments works carried out by BBMP, BWSSB, Bescom and Gail.  Further the complainant despite non service and non-good service of opposite party, he had made regular payments till December 2020.  Further the complainant due to the bad service of opposite party had undergone hardship and loss also suffered mentally and professionally and incurred financial loss, due to the deficiency of service of opposite party.  We feel, there is deficiency in the service of opposite party.  Therefore, we answer this point in affirmative. 

12. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and torture and further Rs.2,00,000/- for damages for laptop UPS modem and Rs.5,000/- for legal notice.  In total Rs.7,05,000/- together with interest @ 21% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint from the opposite party.  We feel the above mentioned claim is an exorbitant one and is exceeding what is reasonable.  Hence, he is entitled for only Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards service deficiency of opposite party and Rs.10,000/- for mental suffering and damage caused and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges.  Hence, we answer point No.2 partly in affirmative. 

13. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and suffering and RS.5,000/- towards litigation cost within 30 days of order. 

If the opposite party fails to comply the order within 30 days, the above said amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

  Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 4^th day of JULY, 2022)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)   (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri.V.Chandrakanthan, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Original telephone bills.
2. Copy of the payment acknowledgements.
3. Copy of the complaint dt.25.01.2021.
4. Copy of the legal notice dt.18.02.2021.
5. Original postal receipts.
6. Original postal acknowledgement.
7. Another copy of complaint dt.05.10.2020.
8. Certificate u/s 65b of Indian Evidence Act.
9. Two text messages sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

 Witness examined for the opposite party side:         

Sri.Nityananda G.Keni, AGM, HR/Admin of opposite party company has filed his affidavit.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of the customer details.

2. Copy of the statement of accounts.

3. Copy of the status of telephone invoice details.

4. Copy of the invoice details.

5. Copy of the payment details.

6. Copy of the fault details.

7. Copy of the details of debates.

8. Three photos print with regard to the work.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA, K)    
•