DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30^th day of March, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member         Date of filing: 27/09/2019   

CC/231/2019

1. Kuttisankaraguptan

    S/o Apugupthan, Valappilthody

    Sreekanth Finance, Kadambazhipuram

2. Sreekanth

    S/o Kuttisankaraguptan, Valappilthody

    Sreekanth Finance

Kadambazhipuram                                                -         Complainants

(By Adv. Raghudas.S.G)                             

                                                           V/s

1. The Deputy General Manager

    Palakkad Telephone Exchange, BSNL

Near Town Stand, Palakkad

2. Gopal

    Public Relations Officer

    Palakkad Telephone Exchange, BSNL

Near Town Stand, Palakkad

(1^st & 2^nd opposite party by Adv. P.K.Devadas)

3. Assistant Engineer – BSNL

    Kadambazhipuram Telephone Exchange

Kadambazhipuram – 678 633                                           -         Opposite parties

    (No such designation)

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief

      The complainants are doing money lending business and it is their source of livelihood.  The 1^st complainant and wife are using the land line connection of BSNL from 1999 with phone No: 0466 2267098 and they are not using mobile phones.  They are using this land line number for their business purpose and had given this number to their customers.  There is also another land line connection in the 2^nd complainant’s name with Phone No: 0466 2268698 which they were using since 2007.  These two connections become non-functioning and the complainants lodged online complaints on 11^th August 2019.  But the opposite parties did not do anything to resolve the issue.  Complainants contacted the opposite parties several times in connection with that; but they prolonged the matter saying one or the other reasons including the strike of contract labourers. 

          Because of the defects in the land line numbers, the 1^st complainant and his wife lost many customers and since they could not contact their customers, they did not get the repayment in time.  This caused much difficulty to them.

          Inspite of lodging on-line complaints; the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties many times requesting them to rectify the defects in the land phones.  But they did not do and insulted them.  This caused mental agony to them.  Because of the conduct of the opposite parties, they lost many customers and some escaped without re-payment.  This had caused huge financial loss to the complainants.  The complainants approached this Commission for an order directing the opposite parties to rectify the defects in the two land line phones and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the financial loss suffered by them together with cost of the litigation.  

2.   Opposite parties 1 & 2 entered appearance and filed their version.  Notice to 3^rd opposite party returned ‘Unclaimed’, later opposite parties 1 & 2 filed additional version stating that there is no one designated as Asst. Engineer in Kadambazhipuram.

3.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 in their version admitted that the complainants are subscribers of land line telephones bearing Phone No: 0466-2267098 and 0466-2268698 provided by BSNL.  They also admitted the lodging of on-line complaints about the non-functioning of these two numbers on 11^th August 2019.  On getting the complaint, the Telecom Technician visited the premises of land line No: 0466-2267098 on the next day itself and confirmed it as a cable fault.  Technician opened 5 pair joints available after digging the pits; but the fault was not at those points.  Fault was in 200 pair which was under a bigger depth and this needed to be attended only with the help of contract labourers working under Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Cherpulassery.  Moreover the space available was very narrow for digging at the relevant place to find out the fault since most of the road was tarred.  Further the contract labourers who were supposed to attend the cable work were on indefinite strike from 1^st August 2019 onwards.

      The office of SDE, Kadampazhippuram after waiting for several days for the contract labours, engaged an external worker on 14^th & 15^th October by paying Rs. 800/- per day personally by him.  After opening the pit, deep cable fault rectification was done on 15^th October 2019.

          Regarding the fault in the other connection, the compound gate of the relevant premises was always found locked and SDE and staff of BSNL Kadampazhippuram requested them several times to open the gate to check the condition.  They opened the gate only on 24^th October 2019.  Since the cable termination box was occupied by bees, it was in a non-operatable condition and oil was poured to remove the bees and rectified the defects. 

          The opposite parties denied the averment of delay in attending the fault and there is no deficiency in service on their part.  The complainant has not suffered any loss as alleged.  No extra charge is collected from the complainant even though BSNL had to arrange external labourers to rectify the fault due to casual labourer’s strike.

          Both the land lines are working on yearly plan and the opposite parties assure the waiving of rental charges for the non-available service period and the amount will be adjusted against future bills.  The opposite parties never misbehaved with the complainant.  Their business would have never affected as alleged and there are different methods of telecommunication easily available.  The complainant is not entitled to the reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with cost.  The opposite parties in their additional version stated that there is no designation as mentioned as opposite party 3.  Hence the notice was returned as ‘unclaimed’. 

4.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration

1. Whether the opposite parties had properly attended the land line complaints of the complainant?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs if any as cost & compensation.

5.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A6 marked (A4 is a series of one CD and a document.  A5 & A6 are handwritten by the complainant with no authentication since there was no objection in marking; they are also taken on file).  

          Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and additional proof affidavit.  Ext. B1 to B4 marked.  Marking of Ext. B1 &B2 are objected to on the ground that these documents are unrelated to this case.  B3 & B4 are objected on the ground that they are not connected to the case of the complainant.  Opposite party filed application to cross examine witness and it was allowed.  Witness of opposite party is examined as DW1; Evidence closed and heard the parties.  Both parties filed notes of arguments.

6.  Point No: 1

      Complaint averment is that the 1^st complainant along with his wife is using the land line connection of BSNL with No: 0466 2267098 for their money-lending business which they are doing for earning their livelihood.  2^nd complainant, his son is using the land line no: 0466 2268698.  These two connections became non-functioning and they lodged online complaints with opposite parties.  Inspite of their repeated requests to rectify the defects in these lines, the opposite parties prolonged the matter saying one or the other reasons.  Further they insulted the complainants.  Still the land phones are not in working condition.      

7.   Opposite parties admit that the complainants are the subscribers of BSNL.  They also admit the on-line complaints made by the complainants regarding the fault in these connections on 11^th August 2019.  They contended that on getting the complaint, their technician visited the premises of the subscriber of land line no: 0466 2267098 on the next day and confirmed it as a cable fault.  The technician opened 5 pair joints available after digging the pits; but the fault was not at those points and it was in 200 pair which was under a bigger depth.  It needed to be attended only with the help of contract labourers working under Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Cherpulassery and due to indefinite strike of contract labourers, they could not do it.  After waiting for several days, the office of SDE engaged external workers by spending money from his pocket and the cable fault was rectified on 15^th October 2019.            

8.   Regarding the other number 0466 2268698, the compound gate of the above number was always found locked and finally after repeated requests, they opened the gate on 24^th October 2019.

          The cable termination box was occupied by bees and was in a non-operatable condition.  They cleared it and the cable fault was rectified on 26^th October 2019.

9.   From this it is clear that, the complaints registered by the complainants on 11^th August 2019 were attended and rectified on 15^th October and 26^th October respectively.  The reason stated by them was that the Telecom Technician found it as a cable fault and the fault was in 200 pair which was in a bigger depth.  It needed to be attended by contract labourers who were on indefinite strike from 1^st August 2019 onwards.  Later external workers were arranged by SDE, Kadambazhippuram by spending money personally and they rectified the defect.  The opposite parties examined the worker as DW1.  He deposed that the non functioning of No: 0466 2267098 was due to a cable fault on the road side.  He found it and rectified it.

10. Complainants had to wait two months for getting their land phone connection rectified.  Their contention is that still the phones are not in good working condition.  The opposite parties are bound to rectify the defect as early as they found the cable fault.  The reason stated by them that there was indefinite strike though valid cannot condone the conduct of opposite parties for the reason that the opposite parties had not proved how long the strike had extended and the date on which it was called off.  They could have arranged other labourers earlier itself.  Their consumers should not suffer due to the strike of their contract labourers.  They should have made alternative arrangements which they failed to do.  So from the admitted facts itself it is clear that the opposite parties did not attend the complaint lodged by the complainants on a timely manner.  Regarding the 2^nd connection, their contention is that since the door was locked, they could not attend the complaint.  When the complainant opened the gate, they rectified the defect.  This is totally denied by the 2^nd complainant.  The opposite parties did not take any steps to prove their contention.  Point No: 1 is decided accordingly.  

11.    Points 2 to 4

      From the conclusion arrived at Point No: 1, it is found that the opposite parties had not provided the service in time.  It is a deficiency in service on their part and they have to compensate the complainant for that.

          The complainant would have definitely undergone difficulty in contacting their customers and vice-versa since they had given this numbers to their customers.  Complainants have adduced no evidence to show the extent of loss suffered by them.  There are different methods of tele-communication now-a-days available as contended by the opposite parties.  But it is for the complainants to decide the option.  Further, it does not preclude the opposite parties from their responsibility.  Liability is cast only on the 1^st opposite party as the 2^nd opposite party is added in his personal capacity and there is no one designated as Asst. Engineer, Kadambazhipuram as per the opposite party’s version.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.

      So we direct the 1^st opposite party  

1. To pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service, Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant.
2. To pay Rs. 2,500/- as cost of this litigation.

The opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 30^th day of March, 2023.

                                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                       Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext. A1: Telephone Bill of Rs. 1,469/- dated 05/03/2019.

Ext. A2: Telephone Bill of Rs. 1,435/- dated 05/03/2019.

Ext. A3: Series of Certificate of Registration issued by Commercial Taxes,

              Palakkad (Copy).

Ext. A4: Series of one CD and a document.

Ext. A5: Details of online complaint booking for Telephone No: 0466-2267098

             (Handwritten).

Ext. A6: Details of online complaint booking for Telephone No: 0466-2268698

             (Handwritten).

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:

Ext. B1: Letter to The General Manager, BSNL, Palakkad dated 04/06/2019.

Ext. B2: Letter to The General Manager, BSNL, Palakkad dated 25/06/2019.

Ext. B3: Receipt for Rs. 800/- dated 15/10/2019 (Handwritten).

Ext. B4: Receipt for Rs. 800/- dated 14/10/2019 (Handwritten).

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: Nil

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: Nil

Cost- Rs. 2,500/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.