Complainant Pawan Kumar through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite party be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, compensation, physical and mental harassment at the hands of the opposite party and any other relief to this Hon’ble Forum deems fit may please be granted, in the interest of justice.
- The case of the complainant in brief is that he is having connection No.01871-221752 which is not working from last year. He gave an application for one way connection of the said number and for closing the internet connection. He met SDO Mr.B.S.Bajwa for his problem on 5.4.2017 who instructed the line man Nazar Masih to solve the problem but the phone remained dead. He also lodged complaint No.1036901673 dated 9.3.2017 and complaint No.1037203799 dated 30.7.2017 but no action has been taken by the department. He has further pleaded that he met Mr.D.K.Sehgal DET (NW/OP) who guaranteed that all the waiver will be returned to him and also called Mr.B.S.Bajwa SDO to look into the matter positively. He met Rakesh Kumar JE who saw the bill and said that the amount of waiver is too much, which the department is unable to refund because adverse action comes over staff. A legal notice was served to the department and the SDE (NW/OP)-1, BSNL, Batala gave a false reply that internal conduit wiring of the subs premises was faulty and the same was informed to him to rectify it at his own level because the internal conduit wiring is the liability of the subs and not the BSNL. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice issued to the opposite party who appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has not availed remedy by way of Arbitration, which is specially provided in section 7-B of the Indian Telegraph Act. The complaint is liable to be dismissed with special costs. On merits, it was admitted that the complainant gave an application for one way connection (conversion into Sulabh plan) and for closing the internet service in r/o tele No.01871-221752. The internet connection was disconnected on 6.4.2017 and landline was converted into Sulabh plan (one way) as per complainant’s request. On receipt of complaint, Sh.Nazir Masih the section Phone Mechanic visited the complainant’s premises each time and found the internal conduit wiring faulty. Same was conveyed to the complainant and his father each time. It was also suggested by its Phone Mechanic to bypass the faulty internal conduit wiring and lay a direct drop wire from the window of the complainant but the complainant said that he will resolve the issue of faulty conduit wiring at his own level. It has further contended that as per field staff report, the internet connection of the complainant was working partially due to the fault in the internal conduit wiring of the customer and whereas telephone line from the telephone exchange to the customer’s window was ok and due to this no refund was permissible. It was further submitted that the telephone in question has been disconnected due to nonpayment of bills on 11.9.2017. However, the O/G facility was barred on 8.8.2017. The last bill payment has made by the complainant on 25.4.2017 and thereafter no bill, when raised by the department was paid by the complainant. The security deposit has also been refunded after adjusting the outstanding bills on 20.2.2018 vide cheque No.440720 and thus the account of the complainant has also been finally closed in the month of September, 2017. All other allegations were denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. Complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1 alongwith photo copies of other documents Ex.CW-1/A to Ex.CW-5/A and copies of bills and receipts pages 1 to 46 Ex.CW-6/A and closed the evidence.
5. On the other hand Sh.B.S.Bajwa S.D.O. (Phones) BSNL of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-5 and closed the evidence.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant is having connection No.01871-221752 which is not working from last year. Complainant gave an application for one way connection of the said number and for closing the internet connection. He met SDO Mr.B.S.Bajwa for his problem on 5.4.2017 but the problem was not solved and phone remained dead. Complainant also lodged complaints on different dates i.e. on 9.3.2017 and 30.7.2017 but no action has been taken by the department. Ld. Counsel has further argued that the complainant met Mr.D.K.Sehgal DET (NW/OP) who guaranteed that all the waiver will be returned but the department is unable to refund because adverse action comes over staff. A legal notice was served to the department and the SDE (NW/OP)-1, BSNL, Batala gave a false reply that internal conduit wiring of the subs premises was faulty and the same was informed to complainant to rectify it at his own level because the internal conduit wiring is the liability of the subs and not the BSNL. The complainant is entitle for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party.
7. On the other hand, opposite parties argued in oral as well as written arguments filed that the complainant gave an application for one way connection and for closing the internet service in r/o tele No.01871-221752. The internet connection was disconnected on 6.4.2017 and landline was converted into Sulabh plan (one way) as per complainant’s request. On receipt of complaint, Sh.Nazir Masih the section Phone Mechanic visited the complainant’s premises each time and found the internal conduit wiring faulty. Same was conveyed to the complainant and his father each time. It was also suggested to bypass the faulty internal conduit wiring and lay a direct drop wire from the window of the complainant but the complainant said that he will resolve the issue of faulty conduit wiring at his own level. He has further argued that as per field staff report, the internet connection of the complainant was working partially due to the fault in the internal conduit wiring of the customer and whereas telephone line from the telephone exchange to the customer’s window was ok and due to this no refund was permissible. The telephone has been disconnected due to nonpayment of bills on 11.9.2017. However, the O/G facility was barred on 8.8.2017. The last bill payment has been made by the complainant on 25.4.2017 and thereafter no bill, when raised by the department was paid by the complainant. The security deposit has also been refunded after adjusting the outstanding bills on 20.2.2018 vide cheque No.440720 and thus the account of the complainant has also been finally closed in the month of September, 2017.
8. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of both the parties; arguments advanced by their respective counsels and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsels for the purpose of adjudication of the present complaint. The complainant has produced ExCW-4/A application dated 18.11.201 for converting the connection into Rs.499/- plan, Ex.CW-5/A application dated 5.4.2017 Internet close make it one way and Ex.CW-6/A on page 5 it is mentioned 6.4.2017 Sulabh Plan Upgraded.
9. From the above discussion and documents produced by both the parties, it is crystal clear that opposite party wanted to change the Internet Conduit wiring which was faulty and the mechanic of the OP advised the complainant to bye pass the wiring to which the father of complainant did not agree and suggests that they will get it changed themselves. Moreover, Internet connection was working partially due to the fault only in the Internet Conduit Wiring from the customer’s windows to the hand set of the complainant. Otherwise, the line was reported to be OK from the telephone exchange to the customer’s windows. Further the complainant was well aware of the fact that this telephone connection was disconnected due to non payment of bills and the complainant filed the complaint in January 2018 and the refund was received by him in February 2018 after adjusting the pending bills, therefore, no deficiency on the part of the OP is proved by the complainant.
10. The complainant in his compliant nowhere mentioned the amount of waiver or any other amounts to be refunded by the OP. So the OPs cannot be directed to refund the amounts to the complainant. The complainant has only asked for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages, compensation, physical and mental harassment at the hands of OPs which is not proved on file. Furthermore the amount discussed/involved in the complaint is less than an amount of Rs.2000/-.Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation, damages ,mental agony and harassment cannot be ordered to be given.
11. Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view and opinion that the complaint of the complainant is not proved, therefore, it requires dismissal and we dismiss the present complaint. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
12. Copy of the orders be issued to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to record. The complaint could not be decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
October 21, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
