Complaint filed on: 10.09.2015
Complaint Disposed on:16.12.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.120/2015
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
M.Ramakrishna Shetty
Aged about 84 years,
S/o Late Sri.Marthappa Shetty,
Coffee Planter, R/o Malligekhan
Estate, Jenugadde Post,
Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. D.L.Ramanujachar, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The General Manager, BSNL,
Chikmagalur.
2. Accounts Officer (T & A),
Office of the GMT, BSNL,
Belt Road, Chikmgalur-577 101.
3. The S.D.O.T., BSNL,
CVhikmagalur – 577 101.
4. The Officer Incharge,
Telephone Exchange, BSNL,
Sangameshwarapet,
Chikmagalur Taluk.
(By Sri/Smt. O.L.Mahendra, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 to 4 alleging deficiency in service in not providing landline facility to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos. 1 to 4 to provide landline phone facility to the phone bearing Nos.252466 & 252027 along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is a coffee planter owning coffee estate situated at Jenugadde post, Chikmagalur Taluk and District and he had taken a telephone connection through OP Nos. 1 to 4 to his telephone Nos.252466 & 252027. After taking telephone connections, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have provided regular connection without any cut off or disconnection and complainant also regularly paying the telephone bills to the OP office. Such being the case on April 2014 both telephones of the complainant become dead and it is idle and not functioning at all. For which, the complainant lodged a oral complaint to OP No.4 to repair the telephone and telephone lines, but no action was taken by OP No.4. Thereafter the complainant on 08/09/2014 has given a written complaint to OP No.3 with respect to the repair of the dead telephone lines. For which one lineman had come for repair and informed that the cable wires are damaged to the great extent and it has rusted and the same has to be replaced by the Department and assured the complainant that he will given information to the Department for the replacement of the cables, but after such visit, the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have not made any efforts to replace the cables which were installed for supply of the telephone connections. Due to non supply of telephone connection, the complainant suffered loss of communication and in spite of repeated requests also the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have not made any attempts to provide telephone connections to the complainant and without any repairs and connection, the Ops are issuing bills to the said telephones. They are not liable to issue bills for the dead telephones. Even in spite of that, the complainant had paid the said bills to OP Nos. 1to 4. Finally the complainant issued a legal notice dated:18/07/2015 against OP Nos. 1to 4 and called upon them to repair both the telephones, for which even in spite of receipt of the legal notice, the OP Nos. 1t o4 have not repaired the telephones. Hence, OP Nos. 1 to 4 have rendered a deficiency in service in not repairing the telephones of the complainant. Hence, prays direction against OP Nos. 1to 4 to repair the dead telephones along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice the OP 1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed the version and contended that there is no dispute that the telephone lines provided to complainant are dead. However, these OPs have taken all possible steps to provide best of communication facility to his esteemed customers.
The Ops further contended that due to unforeseen circumstances such as road widening works by competent authorities and extreme climatic/geographical conditions, the phone lines provided to the customers may be going to be dead. When such phone facility was dead, the customers are provided rebate on the bills for that such period. Accordingly, they have provided rebate to the complainant also in this regard. The telephone numbers 252466 & 252027 of the complainant was dead due to extensive cable damage due to road widening in which the JCB machine was working at Kadavanthi Road during April/May 2014 and the distance to the home of complainant and telephone exchange is around 10 Kms which is very difficult to provide good telephone services to the complainant due to innumerable number of cable joints caused over a period of time and lot of interference like MESCOM and PWD works. By looking at the such conditions, these Ops have provided fixed FWP phone working on GSM which totally avoids cable media. In this prepaid system more economical to the customer and provides for fault free services to the customers. Hence, in order to avoid inconvenience they have provided phone facility through GSM to the complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of these Ops. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P23. The Ops have also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R4.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained two telephone land line connection from OP Nos. 1 to 4 bearing Nos.252466 & 252027 and he is using the said telephones without any disturbance since from installation. But from April 2014 the complainant was not able to use the telephone land lines because it was dead and not functioning. Immediately he approached OP No.1 and requested for repair. But OP No.4 has not repaired the dead telephones. For which he wrote a written complaint to OP No.3 for which the OP No.3 sent one lineman for repair and the said lineman visited the spot and noticed that the lines were damaged and cables were damaged due to road existence and informed the complainant that he will inform the same to the Department. But thereafter the OP Nos. 1 to 4 have not repaired the cables and not provided telephone facility. Hence, alleges deficiency in service and also alleges that he suffered loss of communication. Hence, prays for direction against OP Nos. 1to 4 to provide telephone facility to his landline phones.
9. On contrary, the OP No.1 had taken a contention that they have provided best service to the complainant. Due to repair of the road and climatic changes, the cables provided to the complainant were destroyed and they are not able to repair the cables provided to the complainant due to regular work by MESCOM and other authorities in the road. Hence, they have provided alternative facility called pre paid GSM to the landline which is very comfortable and easier without any fault to the complainant. Hence, submits no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
10. The complainant has produced as many as 23 documents in support of his case. He also produced the bills issued by OP towards landline for charges to the telephone.
11. We observe that the telephones provided to the complainant much earlier and he is using the same without any default. The Ops cannot escape from their responsibility by saying road repairs were going on. When they have taken a deposits towards landline and provided a facility, they should always repair the landlines with their cost as and when damaged and provide landline facility to the complainant. The OP in his affidavit sworn that they have provided alternative facility to the complainant. Of-course it is only an alternative facility to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get a landline facility from Ops because he has paid certain amounts to obtain line from OP’s exchange. Hence, the Ops are liable to repair the cable line in order to provide landline facility to the complainant. Further, we observe that the Ops have provided rebate in the bills to the complainant. As such we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to recover the paid amounts towards bills. Anyhow the Ops are liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service in not providing landline facility after repairing the cables to the complainant and they are also liable to pay Rs.1,000/- litigation cost to the complainant. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The Ops 1 to 4 are directed to provide landline facility by repairing the cables to the complainant along with payment of Rs.5,000/- compensation and Rs.1,000/- litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order.
Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 16th day of December 2016).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Copy of the written complaint dt:18.09.14
Ex.P2 - Another complaint copy Dt:20.11.14
Ex.P3 - Bill dated:06.05.15
Ex.P4 - Another bill dated:06.05.2015
Ex.P5 - Another bill dated:06.06.2015
Ex.P6 - Two bills dated:06.06.2015
Ex.P7&8 - Two bills dated:06.07.2015
Ex.P9&10 - Two another bill dated:06.08.2015
Ex.P11 - Copy of the legal notice dated:18.07.2015
Ex.P12 to 15 - Four postal ack.
Ex.P16 & 17 - Original two letter issued by BSNL dated:05.08.15
Ex.P18 & 19 - Original two bills dated:06.09.2015
Ex.P20 & 21 - Another two original bills issued by BSNL Dt:06.11.15
Ex.P22 & 23 - Another two bills issued by BSNL Dt:06.12.2015
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex. R1 - Attested copy of call list
Ex. R2 - 12 Landline phone bills
Ex. R3 - Attested cop of root sketch
Ex. R4 - Attested mobile call list
Dated:16.12.2016 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
Tss
