15/07/2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the order sheet.

Heard Mr. K.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant on the prayer for condoning the delay of about one week, and on merits.

2. Mr. Ojha assailed the impugned order on various grounds. He submitted that this is a common knowledge that inspite of assuring uninterrupted telephone and broad band service and realizing money in that behalf, BSNL is not providing the services satisfactorily and therefore it is a clear case of deficiency in service.
3. It appears that the appellant – complainant filed this Complaint Case for an order directing the O.Ps. – Respondents to provide broad band service properly and reduce the fix rental charges proportionally when such services were not provided. He also claimed Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation cost. He further alleged that his telephone connection no. 223402 was also not working properly inspite of several complaints. Due to all this, his medical profession was suffering adversely. From January, 2011 the said services were closed. But the old bills which have already been paid were being sent.
4. According to the Respondent, the appellant being a Doctor took the telephone connection and broad band service for his commercial use and therefore he is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act. It was further said that there was no fault in the service and there was no complaint in that regard. It was also said that the complainant was not paying the bills and has falsely instituted this case.
5. The complainant in his oral evidence said that he did not remember when the telephone was disconnected; and that he did not make any written/registered complaint, though complaints were made verbally.
6. The learned District Forum after hearing the parties and considering their respective case, inter alia held that the complainant could not prove that he made complaints before the Respondents. He also could not prove that the Respondents were sending the bills which were already paid.

The learned District Forum also observed that the dispute with regard to the bills is arbitrable under section 7-B of the Telegraph Act.Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

7. No doubt, the complainant is a consumer. But he could not prove that the telephone and broad band services were not satisfactorily provided. It will not be proper to take judicial notice of such position. It was for the complainant to prove his allegations which he failed to prove.
8. However, we want to make it clear that in view of the Letter No. JS(CA)/269/Secy dated 30.01.2014 issued by The Ministry of Communications and I.T. Dept. of Communications, such disputes are covered under the Consumer Protection Act.
9. In the result, even if the seven days delay in filing this appeal is ignored, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 15.07.2015