By. Smt. Renimol Mathew, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite parties to provide better service from the opposite parties along with compensation for the difficulties caused by him due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant having BSNL phone connection in the residence, office and the institution where the complainant is working as honorary secretary, the phone numbers are 04936 220978, 04936 222578 and 04936 227178 respectively. Apart from the telephone connections the complainant availed internet connections from opposite parties by installed net modem, it was not worked properly, then availed net setter, but it was also not functioned properly. When it was complained to the opposite parties they told that non working of net setter and other connection are due to the 2G and 3G variations and offered rectification within short time. But no action was taken by the opposite party and complainant availed a net connection from idea. The telephone connection provided in the house of complainant by the opposite party is not working properly from 1st day of February 2012 and it is a connection with a code which has a length of 25 meters from the post which erected in the compound wall of the complaint to the house of complainant having joints in 8 places and even after repeated requests the opposite parties did not replace the code. But regularly collecting the bill amount. The complainant approached the opposite parties in different time, but all occasions the opposite party said one or other excuses. Hence filed this complaint.
3. Notice served to opposite parties and opposite parties filed version. In the version, opposite parties stated that the complainant is having three telephone connections. The residence connection 04936 222 578 is working properly and it was inspected by the SDE and found that from external DP to subscriber point only one joint is there. Among the connections only 04936 227178 was reported for faults. The interruption period were 01.11.2013 to 04.11.2013 and 12.07.2014 to 14.07.2014. On both occasions the faults were attended and rectified. The net setters purchased from BSNL having guarantee for one year and the same can replaced on producing the bill and after one year and it can be purchased from the open market. BSNL is not supplying modem and net setters now and any fault regarding the same may be rectified by the subscribers. Opposite parties assures that any fault reported in the future will be attended immediately.
4. On perusal of complaint and version the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?.
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Points No.1:- Complainant filed chief affidavit and examined as PW1. Ext.A1 to A3 series and MO-1 and MO-2 are marked. Ext.A1 is the Registered Legal Notice dated 12.07.2012. Ext.A2 series are the Letter and Acknowledgment card. Ext.A3 series are the Telephone Bill and letter. MO-1 is the Modem. MO-2 is the Net setter. The opposite parties not adduced any evidence but in their version opposite parties admitted that both occasions the fault were attended and rectified. If any fault in the net setter or modem it can be rectified by the subscriber and if the complaint is within the warranty period they are ready to service it after producing bill. But complainant not produced purchase bill of the net setter and modem, so we could not find out whether the complaint is within the warranty period or not. More over that the net setter and modem are not checked by an Expert. So Forum could not reach a final conclusion that whether it was defective or not. Both parties not produced any evidence to prove their allegations. Complainant produced net setter and Modem before the Forum. And documents produced by the complainant Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 shows that there was some problems with his BSNL landline. The opposite parties failed to rectify the problems to the complainant, so as to use the landline in an uninterrupted manner. So the Forum found that the act of opposite parties are deficiency of service. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to rectify the defects if any in the telephone connection as well as net connection of the complainant within two weeks and opposite parties are directed to provide better service to the customers without delay. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) only cost of the proceedings. This Order must be complied by the opposite parties within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of February 2015.
Date of Filing:27.08.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. T. P. Ealias (affidavit).
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Registered Legal Notice. dt:12.07.2012.
A2(1) Letter. dt:30.07.2012.
A2(2). Acknowledgment Card.
A3(1). Telephone Bill.
A3(2) Letter.
MO-1. Modem.
MO-2. Net Setter.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
