District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/61/2020

(Date of Filing:-03.11.2020)

1. Sri Rudrajyoti Bhattacharjee

Flora Park Goaltuli, P.S. Chinsurah,

P.O. and Dist. Hooghly, Pin:- 712103.….complainant

1. The Chief General Manager, Calcutta Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones, BBD Bagh Kolkata-700001, P.S. Hare Street

2. The Deputy General Manager, Satyabala Telephone Exchange, BSNL, Calcutta Telephones, 200-201, G. T. Road (North) P.O. Satyabala, District. Howrah,

Pin-711107, P.S Golabari.

3. The Divisional Engineer, Calcutta Telephones, BSNL, New Hospital Road, P.O. and P.S. Chinsurah,

District:- Hooghly-712101.…..opposite parties

Before:-

            Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

            Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

Dtd.02. 01. 2023

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER

The instant case filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 arises from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of landline as well as broadband services rendered to him by Calcutta Telephones Authority (hereinafter referred to as OP in general) during the period 17.11 2019 to 11.09.2020. As all the opposite parties belong to the same organization i.e. Calcutta Telephones, all the opposite parties are considered as opposite party in general, wherever necessary, for convenience.

The fact of the case is that the complainant is an established legal professional and a subscriber of landline and broadband connection of Calcutta Telephones for last three decades for his personal and professional use.

However on 17.11 2019 the complainant had to face a discontinuation of service by the Calcutta Telephones authority allegedly without any prior intimation. Consequently a complaint was lodged. But when repeated persuasion from the complainant’s end for restoration of service went in vain, the complainant was compelled to send a notice to the OP on 22.12.2019.

Pursuant to that, the service was restored in second week of January.

Again, since July 2020 the complainant had to suffer from fluctuating internet connection and sometime no connection at all as reported by the complainant. As a result of the same, it is claimed, that the professional life of the complainant was badly disturbed, there was substantial monetary loss and also loss of reputation.

Further complainant was lodged on 10.08.20 and service was resumed on 11.09.2020 and reportedly, that too with continuous interruption.

The complainant points out that during that particular period, when the entire country was facing Covid situation and a major chunk of professionals was working from home, depending upon telephone and internet, the discontinuation of service and interruption of service by the telephone authority caused irreparable damage so far as the professional interest of the complainant was concerned. Simultaneously his personal life was also disturbed as he failed to make contacts with his relatives in that alarming situation.

Considering the same as a fall out of deficiency in service of the Calcutta Telephones authority the complainants filed the complaint petition seeking direction upon the opposite parties to maintain uninterrupted telephone and internet services, pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain and agony and another Rs.2,00,000/- “towards loss of income including reputational loss and loss of opportunity”

The opposite parties belonging to the same organization contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein most of the allegations leveled against them.

Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant being a subscriber of the services of the Calcutta Telephones authority is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

 The complainant is a resident within the district of Hooghly. One of the opposite parties also has their office within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/- Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

The issues being mutually inter-related and analogous are taken together for convenient disposal.

Materials on records are perused. The OP in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument, the contents of which are almost same, firstly raises the issue that having used the connections for ‘professional/commercial’ purpose the complainant cannot be regarded as a consumer.

But this issue does not deserve consideration as apparently the complainant earns his livelihood from his profession.

Now, while assigning reasons for discontinuation and disruption of service the OP takes recourse to the  reasons viz. 1) digging of the road by local authority, 2) technical complications involved in reconnection, 3) ‘Amphan’ cyclone and 4) Outbreak of Covid 19.

The OP further explains that they undertook   the works of changing copper cable to fiber cable to prevent interruption of service, during the material period. Besides, it is claimed that local people prevented them from doing their repair work after the Cyclone in fear of spread of Covid.

Apart from the above, the OP also refers to clause 2 of the disclaimer portion of the terms and conditions annexed to the application form for BSNL Broadband and Internet service where it is stated that ‘BSNL will exercise all reasonable care in providing its services but it is not responsible for interruption of service due to power failures, equipment malfunctions or acts of natural calamity’.

Now on consideration of all the relevant aspects of the case the Commission finds that the complainant is a subscriber of Calcutta Telephones, BSNL for a pretty long period i.e. almost three decades but things went to such an extent that occasion arose only this time to lodge a complaint against the said authority.

On the other hand, OP could not produce exhaustive evidence/details in support of their claims viz. digging of road by local authority, technical complications involved in reconnection and resistance of local people while undertaking the repair works.

Moreover, in November 2019 when the first discontinuation of service occurred there was neither any covid situation nor any cyclone.

It is also an established fact that when most of the professionals in our country had to stay at home under compulsion and continue their work from home, the importance of uninterrupted

Communication system through telephone and internet was stupendous during the material period. In a situation when the nation was facing a crisis, the role of people entrusted with maintaining the telephone and internet communication systems was awfully important like that of medical professionals, police, health workers, municipal workers etc.

Thus, it is obvious that the OP was deficient in providing services both prior to ‘Covid’ and ‘Amphan’ and also during that turbulent period when citizen in general were badly depending on them.

However the truth which cannot be avoided that in three decades of his subscribership this is the first time the complainant had to agitate over the service of Calcutta Telephones BSNL. It is also true that for that disruption of service the Telephone authority allowed certain discount to the complainant to some extent.     

Hence, it is

                                             ORDERED

that the complaint case no.61/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part. The opposite parties will be jointly liable to pay Rs.20000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, anxiety, mental pain and agony. The OP will also take care about providing uninterrupted services to the complainant in the matter of landline and internet connections. The opposite parties will be liable to pay Rs.5000/- towards consumer legal aid account in case of non-compliance of this order within the scheduled date.     

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.