BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MAY 2024
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 691/2017 & 692/2017
APPEAL NO.691/2017
The General Manager, BSNL, Old Kent Road, Mangalore – 01. (By Sri A.N. Gangadharaiah, Advocate) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Mr. A. Shivarama Rai, S/o Subbayya Rai, Aged about 52 years, R/at Sorake House, Survey Village, Puttur Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. (By Sri D. Krishnamurthy, Advocate) | ……Respondent/s |
APPEAL NO.692/2017
1. | The Officer, BSNL, Sub-Divisional Engineer (groups), Telephone, Kinnigoli Pin Code - 574150, Mangalore District. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The General Manager, BSNL, Dakshina Kannada, Telecom District, Mangalore 575 001. (By Sri A.N. Gangadharaiah, Advocate) | |
V/s
Mr. Reymond D’Souza, S/o Late Ignatius D’Souza, Residing at No.A1-182, Darada Hithlu, Kudripadavu Post, Elinje Village, Mangalore Taluk 574 227. (Served absent) | ……Respondent/s |
COMMON ORDER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI, MEMBER
The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred these two appeals being aggrieved by the Order dt.27.01.2017 passed in CC.No.260/2013 and Order dt.04.01.2017 passed in CC.No.426/2014 on the file of Dakshina Kannada District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mangalore. To avoid duplication of work, these two cases are clubbed together and being disposed-of by Common Order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that the Opposite Parties have provided landline telephone service to the Complainants for residential purpose when there was a fault in the line, the Opposite Parties have not attend inspite of complaints made to the concerned by the Complainants. The Opposite Parties have not bothered to set right the telephone line connection to the Complainants including of registered notice to the Opposite Parties. Hence, the Complainants filed complaints before the District Commission against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service.
3. After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through counsel before the District Commission and contended that BSNL cable system is damaged heavily, however, the line alignment up to Complainants houses was fully restored and the BSNL is nowhere responsible for interruption of Complainants telephone service as it was caused to reasons beyond control and submits that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaints.
4. After trial, the District Commission partly allowed the complaints and directed the Opposite Parties to restore landline telephone line connection of the Complainants residence along with compensation and costs.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/ Opposite Parties are in appeal seeking reliefs as prayed in the complaints.
6. Perused the appeal memo, order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that it is not in dispute that the respondents have availed landline telephone connection from the appellants. It is also not in dispute that the BSNL cable system was damaged due to many reasons on several times in the area of the respondents.
7. The allegation of the respondents is that since about 2 years there was a fault in the line. Inspite of several complaints, the appellants have not repaired the cable system even notices were sent to appellants/ Opposite Parties. Per contra, the appellants have contended that the respondents residential areas are remote area and disconnection was due to road widening work of PWD authorities and jungle was cleared by using JCB by the family members of the respondents resulting damage in the AB ports and GI wires which are totally damaged.
8. Perused the Order passed by the District Commission in all the appeals. We noticed that the District Commission has directed the appellants to restore landline telephone line connection along with compensation which is not just and proper because the respondents have taken telephone connections long back and as per contention of the appellants, there is a continuous intervention of different authorities such as PWD etc. Now a days, there are so many options are available such as FWT-WILL connection/ VOIP/Bharath Fiber Broadband Services/Mobile Connections etc. The respondents can opt the same for communication. Now a days mobile networks are spread every corner of India, but, the respondents are still stick upon to the old landline connection which is not possible to the appellants. Perused the order, we noticed that the appellants have already provided FWT-WILL connection to some customers in that area. Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The Order passed by the District Commission is not just and proper. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeal Nos.691/2017 & 692/2017 are allowed. Consequently, the complaints are dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellants by obtaining proper identification.
Keep the original order in Appeal No.691/2017 and the copy of the same in Appeal No.692/2017.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
