Haryana

StateCommission

A/675/2017

BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SATYA PARKASH - Opp.Party(s)

ANITA SHARMA

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

  Date of Instituion:02.06.2017

                Date of final hearing:22.11.2022

                                                Date of pronouncement:13.01.2023

 

First Appeal No.675 of 2017

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (through Smt. Anjali Sethi D.E. (Legal Cell) BSNL Fatehabad, Tehsil and Distt.  Fatehabad, Haryana).

Through Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

…..Appellant

Versus

 

Satya Parkash S/o Sheo Lal (Resident of Village Suli Khera,Tehsil & District Fatehabad, Haryana).

….Respondent

Respondent already ex parte vide order dated 03.03.2020

 

 

CORAM:   S.P.Sood, Judicial Member.

                   S.C. Kaushik, Member.

 

Present:-    Ms. Anita Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Respondent already ex parte vide order dated 03.03.2020.

 

O R D E R

S. P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

 

Appellant-opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Fatehabad (In short “District Commission”), vide which complaint filed by the complainant-respondent was allowed and had directed the opposite party (‘OP’)  to provide WLL connection to the complainant as per terms and conditions and on completing of formalities. OPs were further directed to refund the bill amount deposited by the complainant and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was having a telephone connection bearing No.01667-252806  in village Suli Khera Tehsil & distt. Fatehabad and has been paying the bill regularly.  The connection of the telephone  was out of order since April 2014.  On 16.04.2014, the complainant moved an application to repair his connection but to no avail. Faced with this situation, he served legal notice dated 16.06.2014 to the OP. The opposite parties duly replied to the notice, it has been submitted that the connection cannot be restored due to damage to the underground cable. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

3.                Notice issued. Opposite parties appeared and filed reply.  In reply,  several preliminary objections such as accruing cause of action, jurisdiction and maintainability of complaint etc. were raised and requested to dismiss the complaint. It was further submitted that the complainant did not move any application nor lodged any complaint about non working of his telephone connection. The telephone wire was removed by Railway Department as the overhead wire was crossing the railway track and OP-department was unable to get the connection of the complainant in working order. The bills issued from 01.02.2016 to 13.06.2016 have already been cancelled by the BSNL. Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

4.                After hearing the complainant, learned District Commission, Fatehabad allowed the complaint vide order dated 20.04.2017 as mentioned above.

5.               Feeling aggrieved therefrom, appellant-OP has preferred this appeal.

6.                This arguments have been advanced by Ms.Anita Sharma counsel for the appellant. With her kind assistance entire record of the appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.                It is not disputed that the complainant is consumer of OP. It is not disputed that the connection was disconnected by the Railway Department due to crossing of overhead wiring. It is not disputed that BSNL and RAILWAY DEPARTMENT are consumer based departments and they are providing facilities to the public at large.  If the connection of the complainant was disrupted then why should the department not repair the same within the stipulated time. The department should provide alternative remedy to the complainant.  The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint endorsing that  OPs to provide WLL connection to the complainant as per terms and conditions. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 20.04.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

9.                Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order.

10.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room.

 

 

13th  January, 2023           Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member                            

S.K(Pvt. Secy.)