Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/61/2017

G.Alagesan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Deputy General Manager, BSNL , Chennai - Opp.Party(s)

S.Arunachalam Asst

08 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 03.02.2017

Date of Reservation      : 16.05.2022

Date of Order               : 08.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                                 : PRESIDENT

                        THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,          : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 61/2017

WEDNESDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

G. Alagesan,

1/7, Agasthiar Street,

Sri Aambal Nagar,

Ramapuram,

Chennai – 600 089.                                                                                                                       ... Complainant                      

 

..Vs..

1.The Deputy General Manager,

   BSNL, Chennai Telephones,

   KK Nagar, Telephone Exchange,

   NO.99, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

   Chennai – 600 078.

 

2.The Accounts Officer,

   BSNL, Chennai Telephones,

   o/o DGM F & A (Computer Billing)

   4^th Floor, K K Nagar, Telephone Exchange,

   No.99, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,

   Chennai – 600 078.

 

3.The Assistant Sub-Divisional Engineer,

   BSNL Chennai Telephones,

   No.1, ARS Street,

   Janaki Nagar, Valasaravakkam,

   Chennai – 600 087.                                                                                                           ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant            : M/s. S. Arunachalam Associates

Counsel for the Opposite Parties       : M/s. K. Balajee

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of both, we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to deduct proportionate rent and other charges for the non-functioning  of telephone landline No.044-24864932 continuously for 51 days from 20.11.2016 to 10.01.2017 and adjust the same in the future bills, to pay adequate compensation for the deficiencies caused that made the complainant to suffer loss and injuries apart from undergoing physical and mental trauma for a sum of not less-than Rs.1,00,000/- and to pay adequate compensation for the deficiency in service caused for not ratifying the defects continuously for 51 days and to award the cost of the proceedings.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant is having a landline connection in his residence in the above said address of Ramapuram, Chennai from 02.02.2013 onwards bearing telephone number 044-24864932. Initially he was having the landline connection with broad band. The monthly fixed charges for the above landline was Rs.900/- plus other charges and the monthly bills for the same comes around Rs.1200/- per month. On most of the days he faced a lot of problem with the Broad band for its connectivity and non-working. The connection to voice telephone was also not easily available. Even if he gets the connection, the net work was not up to speed mandated and the calls were also not audible. Inspite of complaints there was no improvement in service or reduction in the fixed amount and other billing charges, for all such disrupted services. So he decided to discontinue the facility of Broad band from his land line service and now retains his land line connection only for incoming and outgoing calls from 01.11.2014 onwards. Up to October 2014 for having a Broad Band connection he was regularly paying the monthly charge and his October 2014 monthly bill was Rs.1295/- and the same was duly paid by him. From 01.11.2014 on wards as he disconnected the broad band line and retained the land line connection, he is also regularly paying his Fixed monthly charges Rs.265/- plus other charges and usage charges. This comes around Rs.350-400/- range per month and the same is regularly paid by him till date. Even after disconnection of broad band he is facing lot of problem with the present landline connection also and it continues to be out of order for days together on several occasions. The following are the written complaints made to the Assistant Sub-Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Chennai Telephones, Valasaravakkam, Chennai-87, to verify the faults especially during the period from September 2016 to Jan 2017. He also made complaints through telephone to the BSNL complaint cell No 1500 and got the complaint registered on the following dates.

SL.No	Complaint Numbers	Date
1	116401239602	30.08.2016
2	1164020380	03.09.2016
3	116529185557	21.09.2016
4	116658806282	08.10.2016
5	116917762532	23.11.2016
6	116924986522	24.11.2016
7	11631246302	25.11.2016
8	116964749832	30.11.2016

His residential land line No.044-24864932 went out of order  continuously for more than 51 days between the period from 20.11.2016 to 10.01.2017.  The same was rectified only on 10.01.2017, that too when the Complainant caused a legal notice to the all the three Opposite Parties on 04.01.2017. In spite of several complaints made about the non-working of the land line in most of the times for several months, the bills are however generated regularly for is non-functioning period also without any adjustments for non-working days. The purpose for which the Telephone services opted from Opposite Parties at his residence has not been served and he is facing the problem and ordeals intermittently for its non-functioning.  That apart, his frequent contacts and complaints with the authorities not only affects his regular activities are but also made him to undergo sufferings of physical and mental trauma etc., the Complainant and his family suffered losses financially also because of the failure in service of the Opposite Parties. The Account Officer, the second Opposite Party without taking note of the non-functioning period of the telephone land line continues in charging the rent and other charges to the Complainant every month. The first Opposite Party, being the supervising officer allowed to continue the defects without rectification  thereby causing deficiency of service for non-functioning of telephone land line NO.044-24864932 continuously for 51 days the period from 20.11.2016 to 10.01.2017 in spite of various complaints to them. The service rendered by the Opposite Parties over all right from installations of his land line telephone from 02.02.2013 is of deficiency in nature. The Opposite Parties are therefore liable for their deficiency in service.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

        The Complainant is a customer of BSNL, Chennai Telephones with a landline connection bearing No.044-24864932. From 01.11.2014, the Complainant used the landline connection without broadband. During the fault mentioned period from September 2016 to December 2016, there was so many development works like storm water drainage work by COC, Metro water and Drainage work by Metro water wing were carried out one by one frequently. For carrying out these works, they are using JCB Machines and heavy duty Vibrators. Due to this cables of various size got damaged all along the main roads, streets and lanes in the said vicinity. However the Opposite Party carrying out the Restoration of these cables immediately after each and every damage. Based on the letters issued by the Complainant for the waiver of bill paid for the fault period, Rental rebate was approved by the Opposite Party and some of the rental debates were adjusted in the subsequent bills. The details of rental rebate recommended is enclosed.

S.No	Rental Rebate Recommended		Amount of Rebate
	From	To
1	30.08.2016	22.09.2016	Under process by AOTR W
2	07.10.2016	30.10.2016	Rs.222/-
3	30.11.2016	04.01.2017	Rs.240/-

        Non-functioning of Telephone connection as stated by the Complainant is only happened due to the unavoidable circumstances created by the other departments for the developmental activity of public at large and not due to negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. In spite of that the Opposite Party immediately rectified the damages and provided services to the customers. They have not committed any deficiency of service to the Complainant and as such the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the Complainant.

4.     The Complainant had filed his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of Complainant Exs-A.1 to Ex-A.12 were marked. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 filed Written Version, Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties no document was marked.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

6.     Point No.1:-

        It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant had land line connection in his residence bearing Telephone No.044-24864932 with Broad Band and thereafter on facing lots of problems with Broad Band for its connectivity and non working, the voice telephone was retained only for incoming and outgoing calls from 01.11.2014 onwards. It is also an undisputed fact that the Complainant was paying the monthly rents regularly. It is also an undisputed fact that the landline connection of the Complainant was not working properly and was out of order for days together from September 2016 to December 2016, for which many written complaints issued to the Opposite Parties marked as Ex.A5, Ex.A7, Ex.A9 being letters dated 24.09.2016, 31.10.2016 and 19.02.2016 issued respectively to the 3^rd Opposite Party and a legal notice dated 24.01.2017 was issued to all the Opposite Parties, Opposite Parties 2 & 3 received the said legal notice, no reply found to be given by them. But the Complainant was made to pay monthly bills for the said period. The Counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that during the fault mentioned  period from September 2016 to December 2016 from there was civic works carried out frequently by Corporation of Chennai, Metro Water and Drainage water carried by Metro Water wing, by using JCB machine and heavy duty vibration, of a result cables of various size of the Opposite Parties operation got damaged all along that area, hence the non-functioning of telephone connection of the Complainant . Further contended that they had given rental rebate for fault period which were adjusted in the subsequent bills of the Complainant with particulars  in the written version filed the Opposite Parties in support of their contention had not filed any proof or evidence before this Commission nor had any reply found to be sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. The Counsel for Complainant relied upon an order passed in F.A No.A/12/38 dated 16.02.2017 by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra Nagpur Circuit Bench, Nagpur, wherein large number of complaints given within a short period about defective and  disruptive internet services itself in sufficient to prove that the internet services were seriously disrupted during short informed from time to time and said services could not be restarted within reasonable time, held deficient service to the Complainant found to be right by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and upheld the said order, the facts of the case in hand would differ from the case referred above and would not apply to the present case. Based on facts and circumstances of this case we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service by not rectifying the faults of the Complainants’ landline in spite of receiving the monthly rentals from the Complainant.

7.     Point No.2:-

        As discussed and decided on point No.1, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.450/- (being the monthly rentals calculated on 51 days of non-functioning due to defective service of Opposite Parties) with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing complaint till the date of order, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

        In the result this complaint is allowed in part, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.450/-(Rupees Four Hundred and Fifty Only), (being the monthly rentals calculated on 51 days of non-functioning Of Telephone Land line No.044-24864932 due to defective service of Opposite Parties) with interest at 6% p.a from the date of filing complaint till the date of this order, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards compensation and to pay  Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost of the proceedings.

          In the result this complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  8^th of June 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	02.02.2013	Copy of Land line connection order
Ex.A2	21.11.2013	Copy of BSNL bill and receipt
Ex.A3	27.08.2016	Copy of august BSNL bill receipt
Ex.A4	23.09.2016	Copy of September BSNL bill & receipt
Ex.A5	24.09.2016	Copy of Complaint
Ex.A6	28.010.2016	Copy of October BSNL bill & receipt
Ex.A7	31.10.2016	Copy of Written Complaint
Ex.A8	22.11.2016	Copy of November BSNL bill & receipt
Ex.A9	19.12.2016	Copy of Written Complaint
Ex.A10	04.01.2017	Legal Notice along with acknowledgement card
Ex.A11	27.12.2016	BSNL December bill copy
Ex.A12	27.01.2017	BSNL January 2017 bill copy

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN                  T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

             MEMBER II                           MEMBER I                          PRESIDENT