DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  92  of   2017

 

 

Sri Sajal Kanti Singha,

Sri Rebati Mohan Singha,

South Charilam, P.O. Charilam,

Bishramganj, Sepahijala Tripura. .….…...Complainant.

 

           VERSUS    

 

      1. The G.M., B.S.N.L.,

Tripura SSA,

Kaman Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura.

 

      2. The S.D.O., B.S.N.L.,

Bisalgarh, Sepahijala,

Tripura-799102. .............. Opposite Parties.

 

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : In person.   

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Paramartha Datta,

  Sri Tanmoy Debbarma,

  Advocates.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   15.11.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

  This case arises on the petition filed by one Sajal Kanti Singha U/S 12 of the Consumer protection Act . Petitioner's case in short is that he had land line connection of BSNL and he duly paid the bill. But his land line telephone was not working and he made prayer for restoring the connection. 

He made contact with the G.M. for repairing the land line but no action taken. Land phone was blank. But the B.S.N.L. was given bill. He suffered as the phone was dead he could not made contact with the clients as he was a practising advocate and also suffered because of sudden fault of land line. 

 

2. O.P., B.S.N.L. appeared, filed written statement denying the claim. It is stated that since 06.01.16 the line was faulty because of highway widening work. During that period BSNL service and telephone was out or order. It is not possible to continue the services of land line in that area. BSNL was not responsible for such interruption of this service. Petitioner is entitled to get back the amount paid and also refund the security but his claim for other compensation not according to law and liable to be dismissed.

 

3. On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination:

(I)Whether the petitioner's land line connection of B.S.N.L. extended to the house of petitioner was suddenly interrupted without notice?

(II)Whether there was deficiency of service by the B.S.N.L. and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 

4. Petitioner produced the receipt of bills, prayer of BSNL reminder, money receipts, Medical certificates of father of the complainant, USG report and prescriptions, which are exhibited and marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

 

5. Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness i.e., Sajal Kanti Singha. 

6. O.P. on the other hand submitted written argument but produced no other evidence.

7. On  the basis of all the evidence as produced we shall now determine the points.

Findings and Decision:

8. In the written statement, O.P. BSNL admitted that underground copper cable was fully damaged during construction of Railway over bridge. Subsequently total BSNL copper cable was damaged by NH authority during road expansion  from forest office, Sepahijala to Charilam Bazar area. In the written statement BSNL also admitted that since 06.01.16 the telephone of the petitioner was not working due to massive interruption of BSNL service. O.P. admitted that massive interruption of the BSNL was not informed to the consumer. The petitioner had no scope to take another service or replace it to get the relief. Petitioner stated that he is a practising advocate and his father is also 80 years old and suffering from illness and due to sudden interruption of telephone connection without notice they suffered.

 

9. We have gone through the bills, prayer and money receipt. It is admitted and established fact that petitioner paid the rent and consumption charge regularly. On 20.02.16 he wrote one letter to the G.M., BSNL for repairing the land line but BSNL authority given no response. Petitioner produced the bill that was paid on 29.02.16 and 28.04.16. Again bill given for Rs.357/- on 14.12.16. BSNL admitted that the land line was not working since 06.01.16 but sent the bill on 29.02.16 even in the month of April, 2016. Petitioner had to pay it. BSNL received the amount but did not provide any service.

 

10. It is stated in the written statement and argument that consumer is entitled to get the refund. It is stated by BSNL in the written statement that there was no scope to revive the line  connection in the area. If there is no possibility of reviving the land line connection in the area than why BSNL did not pay back the bill money and also security money is not clear at all. In the written statement BSNL contended that BSNL will exercise reasonable care in providing service but is not responsible for interruption/service due to power failures, equipment malfunction or acts of natural calamity. 

 

11. In this case there is no power failure or acts of natural calamity. It is a man made calamity. According to BSNL the Railway authority NH construction authority did the damage. BSNL could apprehend such damage and also could notify the damage. BSNL could also claim compensation from the NH authority or the Railway authority for such damage. BSNL also could claim compensation for disbursement to the consumer. But BSNL failed to do so. The consumer was not notified about such sudden interruption of land line disconnection. There is no possibility of restoration also. But BSNL given bill after knowing fully that land line could not be repaired. This is deficiency of service by the BSNL. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for such deficiency of service. We direct the O.P. BSNL to refund the amount taken from the petitioner after interruption of the land line since 06.01.16 as admitted and also refund the security deposited amount. We also direct the BSNL to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for the deficiency of service. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

12. In view of our above findings we direct the O.P. BSNL to refund the deposited security amount taken from the petitioner and also compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation to the petitioner. Total Rs.42,000/-. The amount is to be paid within a period of 2 months if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA