KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 386/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 03.05.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 98/2015 of CDRF, Alappuzha)

PRESENT : 

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                      : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                 : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                             : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., represented by its Chief General Manager, Office of the Chief General Manager of BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.
2. The Genral Manager, BSNL, Office of the General Manager, Alappuzha-688 001.
3. S.D.E of Telephone BSNL Office of the S.D.E of Telephone, Nooranadu-690 504.
4. Junior Telecom Officer, BSNL, Palamel Office, Erumakkuzhy, Nooranadu-690 504.

(By Adv. Hemalatha. R)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

Sivanandan, Shyamrangam, Panayil P.O, Nooranadu, Palamel Village, Mavelikara-690 504.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER

Opposite parties 1 to 4 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alappuzha have filed this appeal challenging the order of the forum directing them to give reconnection to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order and also to cancel the bills during the period of disconnection and to refund the amount deducted from the security deposit towards the phone bill during such period and to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the complainant. 

2.  Case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is a landline customer of opposite parties (BSNL).  From October 2013 onwards the landline connection of the complainant was not functioning and he informed the matter to the 4^th opposite party and a line supervisor was appointed to rectify the defects, but he reported that it was due to the fault of the BSNL system and only a highly qualified technician can cure the fault.  Thereafter complainant repeated his request several times.  On 12.05.2014 complainant wrote letter for a permanent solution of his problem to the 2^nd opposite party.  Again on 01.07.2014 complainant wrote a detailed complaint to the 1^st opposite party.  Lastly on 11.10.2014 an advocate’s notice was sent to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties failed to rectify the complaint of the complainant.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint was filed.  In the version opposite party admitted that on 11.10.2014 the 2^nd opposite party had received legal notice from the complainant.  Immediately the 2^nd opposite party enquired about the complaint and came to know that there was any technical fault as alleged in the legal notice.  After a detailed enquiry it is understood that the line disconnection was only due to the non-payment of bill amount.  This was duly informed vide letter dated 01.12.2014 itself.  So there was no deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. 

3.  To prove his complaint, complainant was examined as PW1 and documents produced by him were marked as Exts. A1 to A14.  Opposite party was examined as RW1. 

4.  The forum below found that there is no dispute regarding the connection of the landline.  Complainant alleges that his telephone connection was disconnected from October 2013 onwards.  Complainant alleged that he informed the matter before the opposite party several times and they failed to rectify the defect.  Thereafter complainant sent letters dated 23.11.2013, 28.02.2014 and 01.07.2014 to the opposite parties.  Exts. A1 to A6 are the evidence of the same.  But there is no evidence to prove that he had sent Exts. A1 and A2.  Complainant had produced postal receipts to prove that he has sent Exts. A3 to A7 to the opposite parties.  Ext. A8 is the copy of lawyer’s notice.  The opposite parties admitted that they have received the lawyer’s notice and sent reply notice to the advocate.  But there was no evidence to prove that contention.  The opposite parties argued that complainant has not paid the bill till October 2013.  Thereafter they adjusted the dues from the deposit of the complainant.  Ext. A13 is the information received from the opposite parties under RTI Act 2005 on the basis of the application submitted by the complainant.  From that document the forum below found that the complainant had paid the bill amount till 05.11.2013.  On scrutiny of the document we find that Ext. A14(a) is the receipt dated 05.11.2013 for the payment for the period from 01.08.2013 to 30.09.2013.  The forum below stated that no evidence was produced by the opposite party to prove that complainant has not paid the bill from October onwards.  But we find that as per Ext. A13 document the amount for the period from 01.10.2013 to 30.11.2013 was adjusted from the deposit amount of the complainant by invoice number 333743796.  From the document it is clear that the complainant had not paid the bill during the period October-November 2013.  In this case the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has paid the bill amount for the period 01.10.2013 to 30.11.2013.  When the complainant committed default for payment of the phone bill opposite parties disconnected the connection.  As alleged by the complainant, there was no technical fault for the telephone service.  Complainant was informed that the service was disconnected due to non-payment of the bill amount. The forum below found that the opposite parties had not taken any steps to rectify the fault of the telephone connection of complainant.  But there was no fault in the connection. 

5.  In this case there is fault from the side of opposite parties that before disconnecting the connection it should be informed to the complainant.  In this case the opposite parties had never given any notice to the complainant about the disconnection of the service, before disconnection.  In that point there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. 

6.  From the above mentioned discussions and going through the entire evidence of the case we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and also there was fault from the side of the complainant that he had not paid the bill amount from 2013 October onwards. Therefore opposite parties adjusted some amounts from the deposit of the complainant.  Hence for the interest of justice we modify the amount of compensation to Rs. 3,000/-.  We consider that there is no ground/reason to interfere with the other directions passed by the district forum.       

In the result, appeal is partly allowed.  The order passed by the district forum regarding the compensation is modified by reducing the compensation to Rs. 3,000/-.

The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of institution of the appeal can be realized by the respondent/complainant on proper application, to be adjusted/credited towards the amount ordered.

T.S.P. MOOSATH    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

RANJIT. R                : MEMBER

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

jb