This is an application under Consumer Protection Act. relating to telecom dispute filed by Dr. Bibhas Basu S/o Late Pravat Kr. Basu of Basupara, Bishnupur, P.O. & P.S. Bishnupur, Dist. Bankura, Pin – 744122. Against the O.P. Telecom District Manager, B.S.N.L. Bankura, praying for repair or restoration of telephone line and refund of telephone bill and other relieves.
The case of the petitioner in brief that petitioner is a reputed doctor by advocation and a senior citizen. He is a bonafide consumer owning a land telephone bearing connection No.252150. That the complainant is connected with a large number of patients and many others with this telephone no. In his complaint it is stated that during the third quarter of year 2016 the above mentioned telephone turn dead. O.P. informed verbally and then several registered letter sent to O.P. but no steps taken so far by the O.P. On 13-02-2017 an advocate notice also sent to O.P. regarding restoration of the telephone line. Complainant describe that O.P. shows willful negligence and because of non-operative telephone Complainant felt mental pain, trouble, harassment and monetary loss. Lastly, Complainant received a letter memo no.E-204/P1/2016-17/30 date 07-03-2017 from the O.P.
The O.P. contested the case and filed written version against the petitioner. In the W.V. O.P. clearly admit that the telephone line in dispute was faulty since 3rd quarter of year –
2016 and due to underground water pipe line work in Bishnupur town. It is also mentioned that on and from 07-03-2017 the petitioner land telephone line has restored and it is all right.
Regarding advocates notice O.P. acknowledge the same and stated that one senior official was hospitalized the then on 14-02-2017. O.P. clearly admits that there was a deficiency in service on their part but denied of negligence. It is observed that O.P. clearly convey for rental adjustment during non-functional period of the telephone of Complainant. During argument O.P. expressly admitted that they have failed to perform their duties.
Point of Determinations.
1). Whether the Complaint is maintainable ?
2). Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged. ?
3). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
After thoughtful consideration and upon perusal of record on the file in our view it is very clear that Complainant is a bonafide consumer of BSNL and O.P. is liable of contributory negligence because of no documents has submitted in connection with construction work of underground pipe line. The prime issue of restoration of telephone lines was undone because of the contraction work as stated by the O.P. in their written version.
Petitioner is a senior citizen and a person with special individual identity and connected with a large number of people and patients , cannot be harassed.
Inordinate delay cannot be condoned in the emergency service like telephone which amounting deficiency in service.
Mere illness of a senior officer of BSNL cannot be the sufficient ground for restoration of a telephone line as it is known to all that the work done by the workmen of technical experience. Here O.P. has ultimately denied of service which amounts to unfair trade practice.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the Complaint No.27 of 2017 and same is hereby allowed in respect of prayer of getting telephone land line restored.
O.P. is directed to restore telephone line bearing connection no.252150 by 30-days from the date of getting copy of this Judgment.
O.P. is also directed to refund telephone bill during the period of 3rd quarter of year – 2016 to 07-03-2017 by 30-days.
For a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) will be paid by O.P. to the Complainant as litigation cost within 30-days from the date of this order.
No other amount is awarded in respect of others prayers like compensation etc. as made in the petition of complaint by the Complainant for due reasons mentioned in the body of Judgement.
Let a plain copy of this Judgement be given to the both side without cost.
