IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 261/08 DATED 21.11.2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant A.R.Nagabhushana, 114, 3rd Main Road, H-Block, Ramakrishna Nagar, Mysore-570022.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. S.R.Chandran, General Manager, BSNL, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore-570012.<br /> 2. Smt.Revathi, Divisional Engineer (Broadband Services), BSNL, Nazarbad, Mysore-570010.<br /> 3. Gururaj Rohidekar, Senior Accounts Officer, BSNL, Jayalakshmipuram, <br /> Mysore-570012.<br /> (By Sri.V.Anantharaju, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 27.08.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 24.09.2008<br /> Date of order : 21.11.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 27 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has approached this Forum against the opposite parties is that he is a customer of broadband connection since October 2007 provided by the opposite parties. That on 30.01.2008 he mad an application to the opposite parties for change of broadband plan from home 250 to home 500 and to give effect that change from 01.02.2008, for which the official of the opposite parties agreed, but they failed to change the plan, but sent the bill dated 07.03.2008 for Rs.11,527/-. In this regard, he filed a complaint to Accounts officer of the opposite party on 11.03.2008 requesting to rectify the mistake. He also addressed a complaint on 03.04.2008 to the General Manager, but they did not respond. Then he contacted opposite parties office several times, then he filed a complaint before the Adalth on 05.05.2008, which after enquiry directed the Accounts Officer to send him a proper bill. Again when he received the next bill on 07.04.2008 there were full of mistakes and sent that bill for Rs.1,859/- against actual amount of Rs.1,505/. In the next bill on 07.05.2008 again faults occurred and that bill was sent for Rs.3,990/- as against the actual amount of Rs.889/-. In this way, opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service despite contacting them several times and therefore complying that he suffered harassment, tourcher, and mental agony has prayed for damages of Rs.30,000/- with cost of Rs.2,000/-. <br /> 2. The opposite parties have filed a common version admitting providing of broadband facility to the complainant and have stated that the complaint is not maintainable and the opposite parties should not have been arrayed in their individual capacity. These opposite parties further in para 5 of their version admitted to had received representation of the complainant for change of plan and the scheme, but have stated because of technical reasons, the plan as desired by the complainant could not be given effect to from the date as requested by the complainant and they have also further stated that due to frequent change in the broadband plan and delay in updating of the data, there was some inaccuracy in the bills issued and therefore have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the grievance of the complaint, the complainant and one Rangaswamy, a A.G.M. of opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Heard the complainant who is in person, counsel for the opposite parties, perused his written arguments and materials placed before us.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not changing the broadband plan as requested by him and also in charging him for use of the broadband facility exorbitantly?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- As could be gathered from the grievance of the complainant and admissions of opposite parties there is no dispute with regard to a fact that this complainant had availed broadband telephone facility from the opposite parties. The claim of the complainant that he had broadband plan home 250 and had requested the opposite parties to change it to home 500 through his letter dated 30.01.2008 is not denied by the opposite parties and on the other hand they have admitted. But, the opposite parties have contended that change of plan was given effect in the system on 09.02.2008 instead of from 01.02.2008 as requested. The opposite parties have also admitted again the complainant requested them for change of plan from home 500 to 500 C+ on 22.02.2008 to be given effect from 01.03.2008, but that was actually given with effect from 06.03.2008 and have stated as if that delay has happened because of technical reasons. They have also in para 7 of their version and in affidavit evidence admitted, because of delay in updating of the data, there was inaccuracy in the bills issued, but the opposite parties have not come forward to tell before us as to what the technical reasons and the delay for updating the data. Therefore, in the absence of some materials placed before us or proof for inevitable delay their mere assertion of technical reasons for delay in updating the data and mistake cannot be accepted. <br /> 7. It is seen from the copies of the letters produced by the complainant he has addressed number of complaints to the opposite parties highlighting the difficulty he has underwent by getting the exorbitant telephone bills. He has also referred to his agony in having addressed several letters to the opposite parties, visits to their office and telephone calls he made, but despite that his grievance was not attended to within the reasonable time, as such he was forced to take up the matter before the telephone Lok Adalth, which directed the opposite parties to rectify the mistakes in the bills. But even thereafter telephone bills with exorbitant claims continue to arrive at the door of the complainant. It is found that opposite parties claimed Rs.11,527/- in the bill of March 2008, which was later on said to have been rectified. Again the complainant was given the bill for Rs.1,859/- for the month of April 2008 and on the representation of the complainant, the opposite parties corrected it and restricted to Rs.1,505/-. Again in the bill of May 2008, the same mistake was committed by making erratic claim at Rs.3199, but again on the exercise of the complainant it was rounded off to Rs.909. The opposite parties have not satisfactorily explained to us for these repeated mistakes they have committed in charging the complainant for the use of broadband telephone. Of course the opposite parties finally have rectified the exorbitant bills and given the relief to the complainant. But, the ordeal, the complainant undergone is reflected in the letters he had addressed to the opposite parties and his repeated attempts to awaken this opposite parties to rectify their mistakes, abundantly speaks of tourcher and mental agony to undergone, needs to be compensated. Hence, the opposite parties action and omission is nothing short of deficiency in their service and therefore we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay damages of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The opposite parties are jointly and severally shall pay cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21st November 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />