Tripura

StateCommission

A/1/2018

The General Manager, BSNL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sajal Kanti Singha - Opp.Party(s)

Sr. P. Datta

14 Mar 2018

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A. 1.2018

 

1. The General Manager,
   Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
   Tripura SSA, Kaman Chowmuhani,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

2. The S.D.O., B.S.N.L.,

Bishalgarh, Sepahijala,

        Vs

 

1. Sri Sajal Kanti Singha,

S/o Sri Rebati Mohan Singha,

South Charilam, P.O. Charilam,

Bishramganj, Sepahijala Tripura.

                 
 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                          Absent.

For the Respondent:                                      In person.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     14.03.2018.

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [o r a l] 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The appellants, the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Tripura SSA and the SDO, B.S.N.L., Bishalgarh (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/B.S.N.L. Authority) has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 92 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) directing the opposite parties/B.S.N.L. Authority to refund the deposited security amount taken from the complainant and also compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant i.e. in total Rs.42,000/-. The amount is to be paid within a period of two months, if not paid; it will carry interest @ 9% per annum.

2. Today the matter is fixed for hearing. None appears on behalf of the appellant-opposite parties B.S.N.L. Authority and there is no prayer for adjournment also. Therefore, the appeal is taken up for hearing ex parte against the appellant-opposite parties.
3. The respondent-complainant, Sri Sajal Kanti Singha, appearing in person and we have heard him.
4. The facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Sri Sajal Kanti Singha, a practicing lawyer, had obtained a telephone connection being No.0381-236-2527 since 30.11.2005 in his house at South Charilam under Bishalgarh Sub-Division Office of B.S.N.L. and till 28.04.2016 all bills of the telephone were regularly paid by him on due time and there is no outstanding bill, but his aforesaid telephone was not working from 6^th January, 2016 and accordingly, he informed the Sub-Divisional Officer, B.S.N.L., Bishalgarh B.S.N.L. Office and booked complaint to repair his land phone, but the B.S.N.L. Authority did not response to his complaint and on 20.01.2016 he filed a written complaint to the General Manager, B.S.N.L. to direct the appropriate authority to repair his land phone, but till 12.05.2016 the B.S.N.L. Authority did not repair his land phone connection. Thus again he filed written reminder on 12.05.2016 before the aforesaid General Manager, B.S.N.L. Authority for directing the appropriate authority to repair his said telephone connection and also demanded the financial loss caused to him due to non-functioning of his telephone line, but the B.S.N.L. Authority did not take any action. As such, he could not make contact with his clients due to fault of his telephone line.

5. The opposite parties, B.S.N.L. Authority appeared and filed their written statement denying the claim of the complainant. It is stated that since 06.01.16 the line was damaged by the National Highway Authority during road expansion from the Forest Office, Sepahijala to Charilam Bazar and the underground cable could not be repaired in the entire span of around of 2 kilometers and total underground cable alignment has fallen inside the highway with split cuts. Therefore the B.S.N.L. Authority is in no way liable and responsible for non-functioning of the telephone line of the complainant. It is also stated that the complainant is entitled to get back the amount paid by him against the bill amounting to Rs.376/- paid on 29.02.2016 and Rs.370/- paid on 28.04.2016 as during that period the telephone was inoperative, but he is not entitled to any other compensation as claimed according to law.
6. The learned District Forum taking note of the pleadings of the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the petitioner's land line connection of B.S.N.L. extended to the house of petitioner was suddenly interrupted without notice?
2. Whether there was deficiency of service by the B.S.N.L. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

7. Thereafter, considering the evidence on record the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment, wherein the learned District Forum in its findings stated, inter alia, that “In the written statement, O.P. BSNL admitted that underground copper cable was fully damaged during construction of Railway over bridge. Subsequently total BSNL copper cable was damaged by NH authority during road expansion from forest office, Sepahijala to Charilam Bazar area. In the written statement BSNL also admitted that since 06.01.16 the telephone of the petitioner was not working due to massive interruption of BSNL service. O.P. admitted that massive interruption of the BSNL was not informed to the consumer. The petitioner had no scope to take another service or replace it to get the relief. Petitioner stated that he is a practising advocate and his father is also 80 years old and suffering from illness and due to sudden interruption of telephone connection without notice they suffered.” It is also stated that “In this case there is no power failure or acts of natural calamity. It is a man made calamity. According to BSNL the Railway authority NH construction authority did the damage. BSNL could apprehend such damage and also could notify the damage. BSNL could also claim compensation from the NH authority or the Railway authority for such damage. BSNL also could claim compensation for disbursement to the consumer. But BSNL failed to do so. The consumer was not notified about such sudden interruption of land line disconnection. There is no possibility of restoration also. But BSNL given bill after knowing fully that land line could not be repaired. This is deficiency of service by the BSNL. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for such deficiency of service.” Accordingly, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
8. None appears for the appellant-opposite parties, we have perused the written statement filed by the opposite parties before the learned District Forum as well as the grounds taken up in the memo of appeal wherein it is stated that the B.S.N.L. provided its best services to the complainant except in the period in which there was interruption for underground cable fault due to expansion of road from the Forest Office, Sepahijala to Charilam Bazar area as well as construction of railway over bridge at South Charilam which were beyond the control of the B.S.N.L. It is also stated that the telephone connection of the complainant was faulty due to underground cable damage by the Railway Authority and National Highway Authority. It is further stated that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the application form, for landline connection it is specifically stated that the BSNL will not be responsible for interruption in service due to power failures, equipment malfunction or acts of natural calamity or any other reasons beyond its control. Thus the learned District Forum had committed error while deciding the case and passing the impugned judgment. Therefore the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.  
9. Sri Sajal Kanti Singha, complainant, while supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that the learned District Forum did not commit any error while deciding the case. He has also contended that he had submitted application to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bishalgarh B.S.N.L. Authority, but the B.S.N.L. authority did not response to his complaint and on 20.01.2016, he again filed a written prayer to the General Manager, B.S.N.L. to direct the appropriate authority to repair his land phone, but till 12.05.2016 the B.S.N.L. Authority did not repair his telephone connection. So he filed again written reminder on 12.05.2016 before the G.M., B.S.N.L., Tripura SSA, Kaman Chowmuhani, Agartala, but then also the B.S.N.L. Authority did not repair his telephone line. He has further contended that his telephone connection was damaged neither for failures of power nor for equipment malfunctioning or natural calamity or any other reasons beyond the control of the B.S.N.L. The B.S.N.L. Authority was very much aware regarding the construction of the railway over bridge as well as road construction by the Railway Authority and National Highway Authority. He has again submitted that if the underground cable damaged either by the Railway Authority or by the NH Authority as contended by the B.S.N.L., then the B.S.N.L. Authority should have taken up the matter with that Authority, but for fault of the B.S.N.L., a consumer like the complainant, who is a lawyer by profession and whose parents are senior citizen suffering from illness, should not suffer. He has also stated that in his application to the B.S.N.L. Authority as well as in the complaint petition, he has mentioned regarding his professional loss.
10. We have considered the submission of the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties as well as the evidence of the complainant, the P.W.1. The B.S.N.L. Authority did not examine any witness in support of their contention except filing the written statement and the written argument before the learned District Forum. Admittedly, the telephone line of the complainant was faulty due to widening of highway work and also for railway construction. The learned District Forum rightly held that regarding such fault the consumer-complainant was not notified about such sudden interruption of land line disconnection, but demanded the bill for the period when his telephone connection was not working. The learned District Forum in its judgment also mentioned that B.S.N.L. also could claim compensation from the NH Authority or from the Railway Authority for such damage. Here in the instant case, the complainant admittedly paid an amount of Rs.376/- as well as Rs.370/- for the period when his telephone was not working.
11. In Sudesh Chand Kashyap Vs Manager Telephone Nigam Limited 1997 (2) CCC 236 (DS), the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered almost a similar case wherein the complainant was an advocate and whose telephone connection remained dead from 10.04.1994 to 31.05.1994 for which the Learned District Forum granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation which was enhanced by the State Commission Delhi by modifying the order of the Ld. District Forum to Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant therein for his professional loss.
12.  In Krishan Das Aggarwal Vs Union of India and Others (Revision Petition No.148 of 1991), the telephone of the petitioner had remained out of order from August, 1988 to December, 1989 to June, 1990 and it was again out of order on 17^th August, 1990 i.e. on the date he had filed the complaint before the Learned District Forum, Bareilly. There were three bills dated 7.11.1989, 5.5.1990 and 5.7.1990 in respect of the local calls for the amount of Rs.100/-, Rs.468/- and Rs.1,376/- respectively and the petitioner of that case had deposited the money of the three bills ‘under protest’ and the bills were not corrected in spite of complaints. The contention of the petitioner was that he always used his telephone within the limits of free calls. The Learned District Forum after considering the evidence therein passed the following order:

“The Opposite Parties are directed to prepare the Bills dated 7.11.1989, 5.5.1990 and 5.7.1990 after calculating the average of twelve preceding months and to adjust the amount deposited by the complainant. In case, the complainant has deposited the amount in excess, that should be adjusted in future Bills to be prepared within one month from the date of the Order.

The rents for the months in which the phone was out of order be adjusted in future bills. That should also be done within a month from the date of the Order. The rent will not be charged from the applicant. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as damages to the applicant within a month from the date of the Order.”

Feeling aggrieved with that order, the Opposite Parties i.e. Union of India and others filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum in respect of adjustment of the rent for the months in which the telephone was out of order and of excess billing.About the damages awarded by the District Forum, the State Commission was of the view that no case had been made out for grant of compensation and had disallowed the award of compensation made in his favour by the District Forum. To that extent the order of the District Forum was modified. Thereafter, the complainant had filed a revision petition before the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The grievance of the complainant was that the order of the State Commission disallowing the compensation/damages to him is not a speaking one. The Hon’ble National Commission while upholding the judgment of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bareilly noted, inter alia, that

•             are of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner has force. The District Forum has given reason for allowing compensation to the Revision Petitioner. His telephone remained out of order for a very long period and as averred by him it was not put in order in spite of written complaints. The complainant stated before us that he is a business man and his main business is with the help of telephone. He described himself as a ‘canvassing agent’. He explained that term by stating that he enquired about rates of commodities and orders are placed through telephone and he suffered huge damages on account of the non-functioning of the telephone. We hold that the State Commission was not justified in disallowing the compensation awarded to the complainant by the District Forum without giving reasons.”

And thus accepted the revision petition filed by the complainant and set aside the order of the Ld. State Commission to the extent it modified the order of the District Forum and restored the order of the District Forum allowing compensation to the complainant revision petitioner.

13. In the instant case also, the complainant did not get any service from the opposite parties B.S.N.L. due to widening of road by the NH Authority as well as construction of railway over bridge by the Railway Authority. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service on the part of B.S.N.L. as well as the litigation cost. But the question is as to whether the B.S.N.L. should refund the entire amount paid by the complainant as security amount as well as the service charge of telephone bill.  We are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get refund the security amount deposited by him to the B.S.N.L. and also the bill paid by him for the month of January, February and thereafter, but according to us, the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned District Forum is higher in side which requires to be modified from Rs.40,000/- to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. Accordingly, we direct the opposite parties B.S.N.L. Authority to refund the bill amount paid by the complainant for the period of January, 2016 and January, 2017 and thereafter, if any, and also to pay an amount of compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within a period of two months, if not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the judgment of the learned District Forum is modified to the extent as indicated above.  

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura