BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.16 of 2022

      Date of Instt. 21.01.2022

      Date of Decision: 13.04.2023

Samir Ranjan Sur, age about 63 years, S/o Late Sh. M. Sur, R/o H. No.49 Rajinder Road, Opposite BSNL Exchange, Jalandhar Cantt-144005, Punjab.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       The BSNL Corporate/Head Office, H. C. Mathur Lane, Janpath,       New Delhi.

2.       Tajinder Singh, S. D. O., BSNL Exchange, Jalandhar Cantt-    144005, Punjab.

3.       Sumit Kumar, C/o M. M. Telecom, V. P. O. Khusropur,         Jalandhar Cantt, Punjab.

….….. Opposite Parties.

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. MIVS Banwait, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. APS Pathania, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                   OP No.3 exparte.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is a senior citizen and for the past many years is the subscriber of the OP No.1 i.e. BSNL, for landline and broadband services on landline phone bearing no.0181-2260374 The complainant in the month of January 2021 had migrated/upgraded from BSNL broadband services to the BSNL FTTH (Fiber) services with voice/calling facility. As such the complainant had purchased a dual band Router/ONT modem of Syrotech brand from the market. The installation of the said Router/ONT modem was done by representatives of the OP No.3 i.e. the private contractor named Sumit Kumar C/o MM Telecom on behalf of OP No.1 i.e. BSNL The said OP No.3 also provides FTTH line maintenance and customer support to the customers of OP No.3 i.e. BSNL for Fiber FTTH service. Since the beginning, there had been frequent problems in the connection regarding the issue of no connectivity/no voice/dead line. On one such complaint i.e. on 06.09 2021, a representative named Sachin who works for the OP No.3 had visited the residence of the complainant as there was ‘no connectivity’ issue. The representative after checking the Router/ONT modem informed the nephew of the complainant named Sh. Robin Ghosh, Advocate, that the internet service was working but the voice/calling was not working. The representative further stated that the Router/ONT modem had to be configured and had to be taken to the office of the said OP No.3. The representative took the same with him with the promise to return the Router/ONT modem on the next day. On 07.09.2021, the representative named Sachin stated that the Router/ONT modem could not be reconfigured due to the work pressure and that he would return the Router/ONT modem on the next day. Thereafter, on 08.09.2021, the complainant waited the entire day but nobody contacted or visited the residence of the complainant. In the evening the representative named Sachin after being called stated that he would visit at 6.30 PM. However, again nobody contacted or visited the residence of the complainant. On 09.09.2021, the representative named Sachin was again called by the nephew of the complainant in the afternoon. The representative stated that the voice/calling in the Router/ONT modem was working fine and that the Router/ONT modem would be installed in an hour. However, again nobody contacted or visited the residence of the complainant. Later in the evening the representative was again called by the nephew of the complainant and astonishingly this time the representative named Sachin stated that the voice/calling was not working in the Router/ONT The representative further stated that there could be an issue in the server of the said OP No.1 i.e. BSNL and that he was also talking to the staff of OP No.1 i.e. BSNL. Most importantly, the said representative categorically accepted that there was no fault/defect in the Router/ONT modem and that he needed time to talk to the OP No.1 i.e. BSNL and promised that the Router/ONT modem would be returned the next morning. On 10.09.2021, there was a sudden medical emergency at the residence of the complainant and the phone line was still not operational. To add to the agony of the complainant, at about 7:00 PM in the evening, the representative named Sachin, after being called, stated that the voice was still not working in the Router/ONT. The representative named Sachin later visited the residence of the complainant and installed a temporary dual band Router/ONT modem for running the voice/calling, until the Router/ONT modem of the complainant was properly configured. On 14.09.2021 and 16 09 2021, the representative named Sachin after being called did not give any satisfactory reply and kept forcing to use the temporary Router/ONT modem and later refused to return the Router/ONT modem of the complainant and stopped attending the calls. Thereafter, the nephew of the complainant visited the BSNL Exchange Jalandhar Cantt and informed the OP No.2 i.e. Sh. Tajinder Singh, SDO about the said events However, the officer was only fault finding and blaming the customer and defending the private contractor i.e. opposite party no. 3 for reasons best known to him. On 21.09.2021 the representative named Sachin visited the residence of the complainant and stated that the internet was working on the Router/ONT modem but there would be no voice/calling. This time the representative named Sachin gave a new excuse that there was a defect in the Router/ONT modem of the complainant. Whereas, previously the representative had accepted that there was no fault/defect in the Router/ONT modem of the complainant. On being asked to give a written confirmation regarding the claim, the representative named Sachin then called private contractor OP No.3, who refused to give any written confirmation. After which the temporary Router/ONT modem had been taken back by the representative named Sachin and the Router/ONT modem of the complainant was reinstalled with no voice/calling. Thus, the complainant since then is unable to make or receive any calls, even though OP No.1 i.e. BSNL is charging for the calling facility. It is also important to mention here that the manufacturer of the Router/ONT modem named Syrotech after checking the Router/ONT through remote session has also confirmed that there is no defect in the Router/ONT modem of the complainant and the issue is from the side of BSNL i.e OP No.1. The unprofessional and incompetent working of the OP No.3 can also be seen at the residence of the complainant. Where, the previously broken fiber cable is patched temporarily and placed inside a plastic cold drink bottle. The rain water has seeped inside the bottle and the connection might disrupt any day. Even after repeated requests the same has not been rectified till date. After the continuous harassment, the complainant was forced to send a written complaint by email to the OP No.1 on 28.09.2021. Shockingly, the OP No.2 illegally and audaciously closed the said complaint without any resolution. Thereafter, the complainant on 12.10.2021 filed two online RTI applications before the CPIO BSNL i.e. OP No.1. Wherein, one of the application was for seeking information regarding the complaint 28.09.2021 and the other RTI application was for seeking information regarding the OP No.3, who is the contractor of the OP No.1 i.e. BSNL along with the rules, regulations, policy of allotment of tenders to contractors, list of contractors allotted tenders in the past 5 years etc. The illegal conduct of all the OPs can be ascertained from the fact that after the aforesaid RTI applications were filed by the complainant on 12.10.2021. The OPs No.2 & 3 sent a representative named Mr. Neeraj with one more person to the residence of the complainant on 20.10.2021 The representative stated that the OPs No.2 and 3 wanted to fix a meeting with the complainant at the BSNL office or at the residence of complainant. Thereafter, again an officer named Mr. Satpal called the complainant on 26 10 2021 from phone number 0181-2211333 The OPs after failing in their illegal tactics resorted to refusal/denying supplying information to the complainant on untenable grounds. In fact, the reply received from the DGM (HR/CM)-cum-CPIO, BSNL on 09.11 2021 regarding the complaint 28.09 2021, is also an admission of how the OPs No.1 and 2 illegally closed the complaint 28.09.2021 and thereafter are trying to whitewash their illegalities. Further, the first appellate authority under the RTI Act also did not take cognizance of the illegality which was reported in the first appeal filed on 15.11.2021. Instead, the first appellate authority created a new obstruction and again illegally refused to supply information regarding the OP No.3. The complainant being aggrieved has also filed a complaint against the opposite party no.1 before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, New Delhi. It is absolutely condemnable to see that the said OPs who represent the central government, instead of doing their work honestly and sincerely are trying to intentionally mislead and harass the complainant with a malafide intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant. Due to the unfair practices adopted by the OPs. The complainant has also suffered tremendous mental agony, harassment and loss of money and time. The complainant is unable to use the landline phone for the past more than three months, even though the OP No.1 is charging monthly payment for the same and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to restore/resolve/rectify the voice calling (incoming and outgoing) on the above mentioned phone number of the complainant and further to refund back the monthly charges levied by the OP No.1 from 21.09.2021 till restoring/resolving/rectifying the voice calling on the above mentioned phone number of the complainant. Further, OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest for causing mental tension and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.3 failed to appear and ultimately, OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte, whereas OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same has not been properly verified as required under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has filed the present complaint without any reason. The complainant admittedly purchased a dual band router/ONT modem of Syrotech brand from the market. When the said router/ONT modem became faulty and is not working properly, in that event the complainant cannot demand for the repair or the change of the said router by the BSNL. The OPs being the telecom and internet provider has checked the line and apparatus and it has been found that the adequate broadband connectivity is very much available in the line and connection of the complainant and there is only the difficulty of non-function of the router/ONT modem, which was purchased by the complainant himself. Under these circumstances this complaint is mischievous without any cause of action and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is vague and evasive. There is no negligence, unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the answering OPs. The complainant has not been harassed nor there is any delay on the part of answering OPs. The complainant in his complaint as nowhere established that how the complainant has suffered, where there is no negligence on the part of the BSNL. It is further averred that  the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. The manufacturing company of the said router/ONT modem has not been made as necessary party by the complainant, which was required to change the said system if any, within warranty. It is further averred that the complaint under reply is a gross abuse of the process of law. The complainant has filed the complaint with the sole motive of pressurizing and harassing the answering opposite party to submit to the unreasonable and mischievous demands of the complainant. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable, since the complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission and has not approached with clean hands. This Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present case as the same involves the detailed evidence and fact finding which is to be adjudicated in the civil court only. It is further averred that the complainant is ex-facie misconceived, vexatious, un- tenable and devoid of any merits. The complainant has approached the Commission with soiled hands and has made the complaint in order to raise premeditated, false and frivolous dispute to harass the answering OP. On merits, the factum with regard to purchased of dual band router/ONT modem of Syrotech brand from market by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the said router/ONT modem became faulty and is not working properly, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant very minutely.

6.                It is admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased a dual band Router/ONT modem of Syrotech brand from the market. The complainant has proved on record the invoice of the Router/ONT modem Ex.C-1 dated 08.01.2021. It is admitted that the installation of the router was done by the representative of the OP No.3 i.e. private contractor on behalf of OP No.1. The complainant has further alleged that the OP No.3 provided fifth line maintenance and customer support to the customers of OP No.3 for fiber FTTH service. The contention of the complainant is that from the beginning the connection was giving problems and there was the issue of no connectivity/no voice/dead line. It is admitted case of the parties that when the lines and apparatus was checked, it was found that the internet service was working, but there was a problem of non-function of Router/ONT modem. As per the complainant, this was due to the non-configuration of the modem. This fact has also been admitted by the OPs that the Router/ONT modem had to be configured. The complainant has alleged that the Router was taken by the representative of OP No.3 for configuration, but the configuration could not be completed/done by the OPs. All other allegations though have been denied by the OPs.

7.                The complainant has produced on record the documents Ex.C-1 i.e. Invoice of the purchase of the Router/ONT modem, which has not been denied. Ex.C-4 is the email sent by the complainant on 23 September, 2021 to the OPs complaining about the defect of voice calling facility and he has admitted that internet was working fine. As per their reply to the email dated 28 September, 2021 the OPs have admitted that they have checked the configuration and they are able to reach voice server, but number is not getting registered on the service and this is the issue with regard to the number authentication. Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7 are the photographs which show that temporary arrangement has been made by the OPs by putting the cable in a plastic bottle and this is clear cut deficiency in service as the OPs are sending the bills of the telephone and getting the payment also, but the arrangement and the facility provided by the OPs is very bad. The complainant sent complaint to the OPs against the private contractor, which is Ex.C-8, but no action was taken by the OPs. The complainant has also produced on record applications seeking information under RTI Act, which have been proved as Ex.C-9 and Ex.C-10. The reply of the OPs to the application seeking information under RTI Act and the applications have been proved on record from Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-17. As per the letter by BSNL dated 06.10.2021 written by PRO to A.D. CGMT Pb. Circle, the party purchased owned FTTH Modem and now this modem got faulty, due to this problem voice is not working only, data is working. This contention is not tenable. In the modem, there is an Ethernet wire, which connects both voice as well as data from the modem itself. If the modem is faulty, then both the data as well as connection of voice will not be working. It is not possible that the faulty modem will give connection through Ethernet wire to data, but it will not give connection to voice. For voice there is a requirement of configuration, which is to be done by the OPs/BSNL, then only the number of the customer will be registered in the server. The contention of OPs that the modem is faulty, but data is working is far from presumption nor any technician from the OP has come to assist the Commission how the faulty modem would give/provide data. The configuration was not done by the OPs and the complainant is making the monthly payment of the bills received by him despite the fact that there is no voice in the telephone. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The contention of the OP that the complainant cannot demand for repair or change of the router as the modem brought by him became faulty, is not tenable as if there is no provision or rule of the BSNL to provide cables or connection to the modem brought by the customer, then why the OPs have provided the number to the complainant and have accepted the modem and started the procedure. Now at this stage when there is a fault on the part of the OPs in not configuring the connection, they cannot escape from their liability. More so, the complainant has not demanded any repair or change of the router rather he has just demanded to resolve/rectify the calling (incoming and outgoing) on the phone number provided by the OPs.

8.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to restore/resolve/rectify the voice calling (incoming and outgoing) on the phone number provided by the OPs by doing necessary configuration on the Router/Modem. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

9.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated                             Jaswant Singh Dhillon                    Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

13.04.2023                     Member                               President