The case of the complainant is that he got a telephone connection under Calcutta Telephone District from the opposite party under OYT (G) scheme by paying a sum of Rs.8000/-. Then 1st telephone bill received amounting to Rs.3364/-. Subsequently considering the urgent necessary of his son the complainant applied for a broadband/ internet connection and it was connected on 22.5.2009 and bills were paid according to demand. That since 09.03.2013 the said connection of broad stopped functioning for that the education of the son of the complainant has been seriously affected. The complainant has also paid an advance annual fixed charges for bill plan BBG FN COMBO-500 amounting to Rs.4560 on 12.10.2012. Then the complainant filed a representation to the General Manager (BP & IT) at council house street. Kol.-700001 on 29.06.2013 for reconnection/ resumption of both the telephone as well as broad band connection. That the complainant received a letter dated 11.7.2013 from the opposite party No.2 in which it is intimated this complainant that due to underground cable damage and cut several places part by part in the area of the complainant it is not possible to restore the landline and it was suggested to him that as per departmental norms the complainant was requested to take the prepaid WLL and if he was willing to take the prepaid WLL he could apply. Subsequently the complainant made another representation on16.08.2013 stating that he has paid annual fix charges of Rs.4560/- on 12.10.2012 towards the offer of bill plan BBG FN COMBO-500 of the opposite parties and they are also issuing bills and he was not getting the service of broadband so he requested to restore landline and broadband service. Further he stated that the opposite party sent bill on 08.08.2013 when he has no service at all. As the opposite party could not restore the service of broadband and telephone so the complainant and his son being a student is suffering from irreparable loss and injury. Lastly when the complainant met the opposite party in his office, the opposite party informed him that it is not possible for them to restore neither the telephone nor the broadband. Then the complainant filed the instant complaint petition praying damages for suffering caused to the negligence for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and other reliefs as this Forum fix.
The opposite party appeared by filing written version in which he denied the allegations as leveled against him and averred that the complainant got a telephone connection under Calcutta Telecom district from the opposite parties under OYT(G) scheme effected on 05.09.1998. And the complainant continued the said telephone connection and bills were duly issued which were duly paid by the complainant and the broadband/ internet connection was applied for and connection was given on 22.05.2009. But the said broadband connection stopped function since 09.03.2013. Then the complainant made a representation to the general manager (BP&TT),7, Council House Street, Kolkata-700001, on 29.06.2013 for reconnection/resumption of both the telephone as well as broadband connection. Answering opposite party confirmed the letter received by the complainant dated 11.07.2013 from the opposite party No.2 in which the opposite party stated his inability to restore the telephone connection as well as broadband connection due to damage of underground cable part by part for the work organized by the Govt and Prodhan Public Health Engineering Department working in which huge numbers of big size water pipe line has been installed underground for supplying water in the village people, as a result the underground cable has been damaged. This answering opposite party further assailed that the opposite party No.2 also offered the complainant to take prepaid WLL (The telephone without any wire) and if he is willing to take the said connection then he can apply but the complainant did not respond at the proposal of the opposite party No.2. But the complainant without any reason filed the instant complaint before this Forum for Redressal.
Complainant filed evidence on affidavit which supports the complaint petition and denied a few questions.
The opposite party filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of his written version.
Argument as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant heard ex-parte after getting remand the case for a decision afresh vide order dated 10.10.2018 by the Hon’ble State Commission, WB as the opposite party did not put their appearance before this Forum after remand and also failed to file written argument.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant Abul Kalam ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.Ps carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISION WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
(1).Whether the Complainant Abul Kalam ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant herein being the customer of the opposite party is availing of telecom service provided by the opposite party for a prolonged period after paying connection charges and bills as issued by the opposite party. So the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and opposite party is the service provider.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for damages amounting to Rs.50,000/- for suffering caused due to negligent act of the opposite party and punitive damages as per provision of C.P.Act,1986 ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The complainant is a bonafide consumer of the opposite party and he received telephone connection and the broadband connection/internet connection of the opposite party and paying bills as per the bills raised by the authority. It is the case of the complainant that he suffered due to disruption of service of telephone as well as broadband and he prayed before the opposite party to restore although he has moved the matter before the appropriate authority of telecommunication. The answering opposite party admitted the plaint in that regard that he failed to provide telephone connection as well as broadband connection from 09.03.2013 as the underground service line of the opposite party cut part to part for installation of underground pipeline for the work organized by the Govt. and Public Health Engineering Department working in which huge numbers of big size water pipe line has been installed underground for supplying water in the village people. He further assailed that the Welfare Policy of the Government to supply water to fulfill the basic needs of poor villagers is going on full fledge as a result the underground service line of the opposite party damaged in several places part by part in the area of the complainant for which it is not possible for the opposite party to reconnect the telephone and broadband connection of the complainant. The complainant put his grievances before the authority being a responsible citizen but the opposite party No.-2 by a letter dated 11.7.2013 intimated this complainant regarding his incapability and he suggested alternative measure to meet his need in time. But the complainant never availed of the proposal of the opposite party No.-2 and put the matter before this Forum for Redressal.
This Forum after hearing the agents on behalf of the complainant and perusing the case records and documents are in the opinion that the complainant being the bonafide customer of the opposite party are availing of telephone service of BSNL and broadband connection by paying connection charges as well as bill amounts but the opposite party failed to supply the telephone properly so the complainant being aggrieved approached the opposite party with a request to supply the said connection relentlessly but the opposite party failed to supply telephone connection as well as broadband connection properly even the opposite party generated bills during the period of disconnection so the complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party as envisaged in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
The opposite party by filing written version and evidence on affidavit denied the allegations leveled against them and tried to escape from their liability of serving its consumer properly by the name of Govt. work for providing water in the rural areas caused such disruption. The opposite party also took plea that due to unprecedented cause the disruption of line took place and the opposite party may not cause the obstruction of installing pipe line for supplying water to the poor people of the society. The supply of water is the basic needs of the poor people which are organized by the government so the complainant being a sensible and responsible citizen should afford his suffering for the cause of people in rem. The complainant should have avail alternate means to mitigate his needs in time. As alternate means the opposite party offered WLL to this complainant but the complainant refused the same as because WLL line has no internet connection which is the basic needs for proper education and career development of his sons.
The documents in the case record clearly speaks that the complainant being the bonafide consumer of the opposite party several times approached the opposite party through representation for getting his connection being repaired but all his requests came into all in vain. But it is transparent from the photocopy copies of telephone bills in the case record that the opposite party collected the dues from the complainant after serving notice for the period when the telephone connection as well as broadband connection of the complainant being disconnected. The complainant being the bonafide consumer of the opposite party BSNL paid bills and charges regularly as per the generation of bills with the aspiration to get the service continuously. But due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party caused mental pain and agony of the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party.
From all corners in the case record it is established that the opposite party being service provider failed to provide service to its consumers which tantamount to deficiency of service. The service ought to provide to its consumer by the opposite party comes within the purview of Sec.2(1) (o) of the C.P.Act,1986.
4).Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged
and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could prove his case and the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation for the suffering of this complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.183/2013 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.6000/- .
The opposite party No.1&2 are jointly and/or severally directed to provide the telephone connection and internet connection of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. They are also directed not to generate bills for the period when the telephone connection and internet connection of the complainant was out of order.
The opposite party No.1&2 are jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- for harassment, mental agony & pain of the complainant.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the fund of “Consumer Legal Aid Account”.
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 acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.
