Tripura

StateCommission

A/9/2019

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Shibendra Dasgupta - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Paramartha Datta, Miss. Ayantika Chakraborty

30 Sep 2019

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No. A.9.2019

 

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Represented by its Managing Director, BSNL,

Sanchar Bhavan, 20, Ashoka Road,

New Delhi - 110001.

 

2. The SDO (Telephone),

BSNL Office, Ambassa,

Dhalai, Tripura,

Represented by the Assistant General Manager (Admn),

Office of the GM, BSNL, Agartala.

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 & 2.

•  

 

1. Shri Shibendra Dasgupta,

S/o Late Samendra Dasgupta of Kamalpur,

P.O. & P.S. Kamalpur, Dhalai, Tripura.

                                                          … … … …  Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present

Hon’ble Mr. Justice U.B. Saha

President,

State Commission

 

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission

 

 

 

For the Appellants:                             Mr. Paramartha Datta, Adv.

For the Respondent:                            Absent.

Date of Hearing:                                   22.08.2019

Date of Delivery of Judgment:            30.09.2019

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

U.B. Saha, J,

 

The instant appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhalai District, Kamalpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Case No.C.C.05/CC/KMP/2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant) and held that the appellants-BSNL (hereinafter referred to as opposite parties/BSNL) is to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment resulting from the deficient service on the part of the appellant-BSNL Authorities and also to pay an additional amount of Rs.2,000/- as legal expenses, in total Rs.12,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be paid within a period of one month from the date of passing the judgment; failure on the part of the opposite parties to make conclusive payment will attract interest @8% per annum.     

2. It appears from the order dated 08.07.2019, the delay of 20 days was condoned by this Commission after hearing the condonation petition and the appeal was admitted to be heard.
3. Heard Mr. Paramartha Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-opposite parties, BSNL. None appeared on behalf of the respondent-complainant even after receipt of notice.
4. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The respondent-complainant filed a complaint petition under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the learned District Forum alleging that he is a consumer of BSNL landline service having landline connection No.03826-262420 with STD facility since 1996 and broadband connection since 2012. The aforesaid telephone connection was not working from 05.06.2017 to 05.07.2017. As a result, he could not contact with his relatives, friends and other persons and also could not transfer money to his children through net banking who were studying at Agartala. Hence the complaint wherein he claimed for damages to the extent of Rs.50,000/- for his mental agony and physical strain and also claimed Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. The BSNL authorities filed their written objection wherein it is mentioned that from the customer application form clearly states that BSNL is not responsible for interruption due to power failure, equipment malfunction or act of natural calamity.
6. The appellant-opposite parties further claimed that the BSNL is not responsible for actions taken by customers or others as a result of its service. Further case of the appellant-opposite parties is that there was interruption with effect from 05.06.2017 due to E.T.S. Card faulty for thundering/lightening and from 13.06.2017 due to Optical Fiber Cable (OFC) breakdown between Ambassa-Kamalpur Section due to road work. The aforesaid breakdown was restored on 14.06.2017 and other then landline services were restored. Therefore, the BSNL Authority is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant particularly when there was no negligence on their part.
7. The complainant submitted his examination-in-chief and also examined himself as a witness.
8. On the other hand, the appellant-opposite parties, BSNL also submitted its examination-in-chief of one Shri Samir Das, SDE (Legal), BSNL who was also cross-examined by the complainant.
9. The learned District Forum considering the pleadings as well as the evidence adduced by the parties framed the following points for deciding the case:-

1. Whether the complainant Shibendra Dasgupta is a consumer of BSNL and had a land phone connection No.03826-262-420?
2. Whether the land line connection of the complainant remained out of order during the period from 05-06-2017 to 05-07-2017?
3. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the BSNL authorities?
4. Whether the complainant Shibendra Dasgupta is entitled to damages for loss sustained by him?
5. What should be the quantum of compensation/ damages, if any payable to the complainant in this case?

10. After hearing the parties, the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment.
11. Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment would contend that the learned District Forum ought to have consider that the landline telephone connection was interrupted only for eight days with effect from 05.06.2017 due to ETS card faulty for thundering/lightning and from 13.06.2017 due to Optical Fiber Cable breakdown between Ambassa-Kamalpur Section due to road work. He has again submitted that the breakdown was restored on 14.06.2017 and other than landline services were also restored, but the learned District Forum passed the impugned judgment holding that the BSNL is negligent for which they are liable to pay compensation. Such findings of the learned District Forum are required to be interfered with.
12. As none appeared for the respondent-complainant, we have gone through the written argument submitted by the complainant before the learned District Forum as well as the evidence on record. Admittedly, the respondent-complainant is a consumer of the BSNL having his landline and broadband connection as stated (supra), but question arose as to whether his landline as well as the broadband was not working for the negligence of the opposite parties-BSNL or due to ETS Card faulty for thundering/lightning and/or due to Optical Fiber Cable breakdown between Ambassa-Kamalpur on account of road work. The learned District Forum though considered the case of the complainant regarding non-functioning of his landline and broadband, but did not consider the case of the BSNL Authority, particularly, the cause of collapsing the telecommunication system in Kamalpur Sub-Division including landline phone and broadband of the complainant due to natural calamity and road work. More so, we are of the view that the awarded amount is higher in side. According to us, the proper compensation for mental agony and harassment should be Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- and the complainant is also entitled to get additional amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of litigation as passed by the learned District Forum. Accordingly, the awarded amount is modified to the extent as indicated above. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation, in total Rs.7,000/-. The appellants-BSNL shall pay the aforesaid amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the judgment, failing which; the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @8% per annum till the date of payment.   

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs.

Send down the records to the learned District Forum, Dhalai District, Kamalpur.