| First Appeal No. FA/152/2011 | | (Arisen out of Order Dated 31/07/2009 in Case No. CC/31/2008 of District Deoghar) |
| | | | 1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited | | O/o- the Telecom District Manager, Dudhni Chowk, Dumka, P.S. & District- Dumka |
| ...........Appellant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Sri Ganesh Lal Poddar | | Near Sarkar Bhawan Williams Town, P.O.,P.S. & District- Deoghar |
| ...........Respondent(s) |
|
|
| ORDER | 07-10-2015 – The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheets. Due to long and uncertain period of absence of the Members, single member bench of President is functioning in their absence, in view of the order of Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2014, in the matter of Mr. Netaji Surrendra Mohan Nayyar -vs- Citibank; and the judgment passed by Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the W.P. (C) No. 30939 of 2010 (N) P.K. Jose –vs- M. Aby & ors. - Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears for the respondent.
- Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the O.P. – appellant (BSNL for short) on the prayer for condoning the delay and on merits.
- This appeal has been filed along with a petition for condoning the delay of about 22 months and 10 days. In the limitation petition, it is said that the appellant had no knowledge about the impugned order and came to know about it only on 24.05.2011 when the notice of execution was received. Then certified copy of the order and other documents were obtained on 29.06.2011 and then after obtaining approval this appeal was filed.
- It appears that the BSNL appeared before the learned District Forum and therefore it cannot say that it had no knowledge of the impugned order. Absolutely vague, general and sweeping statement have been made in the limitation petition and no grounds have been made out for condoning the long delay of about 22 months and 10 days.
- On merits, Mr. Sanjay Prasad submitted that due to damage to the cable while constructing road, the telephone of the respondent – complainant was dead. He applied for ‘Tarang Set’ but withdrew the application and got the telephone disconnected, and then filed the present complaint and therefore, he was not a consumer and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the BSNL.
- The learned District Forum after hearing the parties interalia held that the phone of the complainant was out of order since November, 2007 about which several oral and written complaints were made but the telephone connection was not set right. Rather BSNL raised false and wrong pleas. On the one hand it was said that due to widening of road, cable was damaged and therefore telephone was dead. On the other hand, it was said that the complainant got his telephone connection disconnected. The District Forum held that BSNL did not produce any material in support of the said explanations. Thus, it appeared that BSNL was trying to defend on false and wrong pleas, which was condemnable. In the result, it directed the O.P. – S.D.O.(Telephone) to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost and restore the telephone connection within two months from the date of the order. It was further ordered that the said amounts will be realized from the salary of S.D.O. (Telephone) by TDM, Dumka.
- After hearing Mr. Prasad for BSNL and going through the records, it is clear that BSNL could not bring on record any material to show that complainant got his telephone connection disconnected. Rather it appears from his letters dated 17.02.2008 and 19.02.2008 that he requested for setting right his telephone connection. Further, BSNL could not prove that due to damage of cable, the telephone line could not be set right from November, 2007 for about 20 months i.e. up to the date of the impugned judgment.
- In the result, this appeal is liable to be dismissed on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits.
- However, the operative portion of the impugned order is modified to the following extent. The amount of compensation is reduced from 25,000/- to 10,000/-. The litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- is upheld. If the telephone connection of the complainant has not been set right, he will be asked whether he wants to get it in order. If he wants, it will be set right/restored within 72 hours without any charge. The said amount of Rs. 11,000/- will be paid by the BSNL – appellant, instead of deducting it from the salary of the then S.D.O. (Telephone).
With these modifications, this appeal is dismissed. Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful. Ranchi, Dated:- 07-10-2015 | |
