Tripura

West Tripura

CC/95/2016

Shri Haradhan Sarkar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.N. Majumdar.

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  95   of  2016

Haradhan Sarkar,
S/O- Late Sarada Charan Sarkar,
Akhaura Road, P.O. Ramnagar,,
P.S. West Agartala, West Tripura.    ..........Complainant.

             ___VERSUS___
The General Manager,
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,
Kaman Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.        ...........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.P.                 : Sri Paramartha Datta,
                      Sri Debabrata De,
                       Advocates.
                     
                                 
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 17.03.2017

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by one Haradhan Sarkar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. He filed the case against the General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Fact of the case in short is that his telephone no-2328992 was non functional from 4.4.16. Thereafter on 3 spells up to 17.09.16. Broad Band service was not available. ISD call, STD call not possible. Petitioner informed the O.P. BSNL for restoration of connection but connection was not given. Rental charge Rs.10,106/- claimed by the O.P. BSNL and petitioner had to pay it. Frequently the telephone was out of order. Petitioner prayed before the General Manager on 17.11.16. Several complaint was made. After 21st November 2016 the connection was restored. There was complete disturbance within this period from February, 2016 to November, 2016. Due to that petitioner being a professional as lawyer suffered for disconnection of Broad Band. Petitioner claimed return of deposited amount as he did not get the service and also Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. 

2.        O.P. General Manager BSNL appeared, filed written objection. It is admitted that there was fault in the line. There was interruption due to cable fault as road work for construction for over-bridge was going on. It was beyond the control of BSNL.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether the O.P. BSNL caused inconvenience and had deficiency of service in giving telephone connection to the petitioner?
        (II)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?
  
4.        We have gone through the telephone bill in the name of the complainant. Bill period is from 01.01.16. the 31.02.16. The bill is for an amount of Rs.10,106/-. We have gone through the correspondence given about non functional Broad band connection. It was informed to the General Manager that from 04.04.16 Broad Band connection was disturbing. Though bill for unlimited plan paid Rs.10,106/-. This amount was given for 11 months. But service was not available from 04.04.16 to November, 2016. The tariff is subject to change. O.P. BSNL received the amount but failed to give proper service. The contention of the O.P. is that disruption of BSNL telephone line was due to cable disturbance. It was beyond control of the O.P. The extension work of the over bridge at Fire Brigade Chowmuhani caused the disruption. But the work of over bridge is still going on but the connection was restored in the month of November. Above all the extension work is not Act of God. So BSNL should have control over it. It should not allow any other authority to make interruption  in connection and if it is done by any other authority or any other department then BSNL is entitled to get compensation for it. For the fault of other BSNL should not cause inconvenience to the customer. It is also found that BSNL charged Rs.10,106/- as service charge without providing service in the 11 months. Out of 11 months service was not provided for 8 months. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by BSNL. We therefore, direct the O.P. BSNL to refund the amount Rs.10,106/- paid as service charge by the petitioner. We also direct BSNL to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner who being a professional man as lawyer suffered because of not getting the Broad band connection during this period. For this inconvenience and sufferings petitioner is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- for cost of litigation another Rs.2000/- is awarded. In total petitioner is entitled to get Rs.27,106/- as  compensation & refund. Both the points are decided accordingly.
    
5.        In view of our above findings over the two points we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.27,106/- to the petitioner immediately. However, BSNL will give bill for the connection from November 2016 and petitioner shall pay it as connection restored. The payment of Rs.27,106/- is to be paid within a period of 2(two) 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    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.