CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 16th day of March 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 20/02/2016
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI. V.P. ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/25/2016
V.C Ramadas
S/o. V.P .Ghola,
12/564 Seetha Nilayam,
Alanallur.
(By Adv. P.A. Velayudhan) : Complainant
Vs
1.Public Relation Officer,
BSNL, Palakkad.
: Opposite parties
2. Assistant General Manager,
C/o. G.M.T, Palakkad.
(By Adv. P.K. Devadas)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma K.P.Member
The case of the complainant are as follows:-
Complainant’s case is that he is a subscriber of a land line telephone bearing No. 04924-262076 with BSNL at Allanallur exchange. The complainant’s land phone got out of order and matter was reported to the BSNL exchange at Alanallur in the month of December 2014 by booking a complaint by dialing 198 and the same was registered, and from that day onwards the land line broad band was also not working. Even though the complainant has contacted the opposite parties several times but no action was taken. There after the matter was reported to 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party had sent a message stating that the fault is rectified and is working. But unfortunately it was not working. There after the 1st opposite party send a message stating that the connection could not be restored as replacement of cable is to be laid and new cable is not available. Till then BSNL kept the number under departmental safe custody from 28/15/2015 without rent. Though for three months the complainant’s landline was out of order and it was not repaired, and kept under safe custody, the complainant has paid Rs. 571/- as rent for the month of January 2015. He was paying rent without the telephone working. The complainant alleges that there are latches, negligence and carelessness in rendering service. Hence he claims Rs. 75,000/- as damages for loss of service, financial loss, mental agony and loss of studies of his sons. The complainant prays for the land phone be given without any defect and rectified. The complainant had approach before the Forum seeking the order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service, and negligence and carelessness in rendering service to the complainant along with cost of this proceedings.
Opposite parties entered appearance upon notice from the forum and filed version contending the following.
The Opposite parties admit that a complaint was filed with the BSNL on 4.12.2014 by the complainant as COTEL/E/2014/42729 about his landline connection bearing No. 04924-262076 under the Alanallur BSNL Exchange. The complaint was immediately looked into and action taken. On 08/12/2014 it was rectified and got the confirmation from the complainant that the line is ok. Again a complaint was received from the complainant on 02/05/2015 stating that his landline is out of order for the past one week. This was also immediately attended to and rectified. The averment that the landline was not working from December 2014 by the complainant is not correct as the usage of both the landline and broadband is seen from the office records. Even for December 2015 the broadband usage is seen till 05/12/2015. As per the field report about 300 meters of 5 pair cable is required to rectify the fault. Out of this 300 meter
cable 150 meters had manufacturing defect and balance 150 meters is damaged. Apart from this trenching of 150 meters of cable is required. The fault can be rectified only after receipt of 300 meters of cable, trenching and laying of cable. As 300 meter of cable is not available at present these opposite parties were compelled to keep the number under departmental safe custody without rent from 28/12/2015. These opposite parties admit that Rs.571/- was paid by the customer on 23/01/2016 for the usage during December 2015. But as the landline was not working from 06/12/2015, Rs.400/- was adjusted on 12/01/2016 for non working period. Broadband usage is seen from December 2015 till 05/12/2015. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is admitted that there was some delay in rectification of the fault. But it was caused only due the above mentioned reasons. The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as claimed in the complainant. As and when the cable is available the fault will be rectified and the connection will be restored.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with application as IA 250/16 to call for the documents from opposite parties. Opposite party produce the concerned documents. Opposite party also filed prove affidavit along with documents. Ext. A1 to A5 was marked from the part of complainant and Ext. B1 to B18 was marked from the side of opposite parties. Evidence was closed. Matter was heard.
The Issues that arises for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues 1 & 2
Heard both parties.
We have also perused the documents and affidavits filed by both parties before the forum.
It is admitted that there was delay in rectification of the complainant’s landline. The opposite party submitted that it was caused for want of the cable, trenching and laying of cable. Phone was kept under departmental custody from 28/12/15. According to the complainant it is the primary duty of the opposite party, a public sector company, the BSNL, to keep sufficient stock of cable for telephone and broadband service which is very basic and inevitable material – the since qua non of the telephone communication system as arteries and veins are inevitable to the blood circulation system. Lack of or shortage of cable cannot be a ground or justification for denying service, affairs and gross negligence is higly deplorable and is least expected of a responsible public sector giant like BSNL. Lack of cable cannot be a justification for deficiency in service. It’s the cardinal duty of BSNL to have sufficient or a buffer stock of cables to meet any contingencies. But even to restore a disrupted connection the opposite parties do not have cable. From the admissions of the opposite parties, it can be inferred that the timelag between a complaint and its redressal is getting longer and longer with each succeeding complaint. This endorses the allegation that the opposite parties were bent upon troubling the complainant on account of complainants made, one after another, due to frequent disruption of service. The opposite parties cannot take shelter under its own breaches and fault to unjustly enjoy the funds of the complainant.
The deprivation / denial of telephone and broadband service and the lack of response to restore the service, despite repeated requests and reminders has devastated the peace of mind of the complainant and the members of his family. The children of the complainant who are students were badly affected by the
disruption of broadband service and they had to visit Net cafe and friends houses for NET surfing for various assignments and project works as a part of their school studies. The disruption of telephone and broadband service has affected the business of the complainant badly and he has lost many prospective clients and business there from. Many business opportunities had to be forgone for want of timely communication, as a result of the disruption of telephone and broadband service by the opposite parties. The assertion that the phone is working now, is not a remedy for the wrong committed and consequential suffering of the complainant.
From the above submissions and facts and circumstances of the above case, we are of the view that, there was disruption of telephone and broadband service coupled with inordinate delay to attend and resolve complainant’s faults. This amount to deficiency of service on the party of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and suffering due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties along with Rs. 2000/- as cost of this litigation. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay interest @ 9 % from 16/03/2017 till date of realization.
Pronounced in the open court on 16th March 2017.
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Presidents
Sd/-
Smt. Suma. K.P
Member
Sd/-
Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1- E-mail complainants from 2014 to 2016 dated 8/12/2014. (Copy)
Ext.A2- Reporting of the working condition by Asst. General Manager dated 22/09/2015. (Copy)
Ext.A3- Letter from General Manager dated 03/02/2016. (Copy)
Ext.A4- Text message of complaint registered and other txt messages of payment. (Copy)
Ext.A5- Complaint registered in public Grievance portal.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties
Ext. B1 – True copy of the letter sent by opposite party 1 to complainant dated
08/12/2014.
Ext. B2 – The details regarding the complaint KRL/10/2015/12906 on
18/10/2015.
Ext. B3 – The details regarding the complaint KRL/10/2015/12907 on
18/10/2015.
Ext. B4 – The details regarding the complaint KRL/10/2015/116140 on
15/12/2015.
Ext. B5– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/12/2014 to
31/12/2014.
Ext. B6– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/01/2015 to
31/01/2015.
Ext. B7– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/02/2015 to
28/02/2015
Ext. B8– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/03/2015 to
31/03/2015.
Ext. B9– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/04/2015 to
30/04/2015.
Ext. 10– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/05/2015 to
01/05/2015.
Ext. B11– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/06/2015 to
30/06/2015.
Ext. B12– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/07/2015 to
31/07/2015.
Ext. B13– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/08/2015 to
31/08/2015.
Ext. B14– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/09/2015 to
30/09/2015.
Ext. B15– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/10/2015 to
31/10/2015.
Ext. B16– Usage details of the telephone for the period 01/11/2015 to
31/11/2015.
Ext. B17– Usage details of the telephone for the period 26/12/2015 to
31/12/2015.
Ext. B18 – Telephone bill of phone No. 04924262076 issued to complainant
dated 23/01/2016.
Witness marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Allowed as cost
Rs.2,000/- as cost.
